Abstract

Congress and the Nation is the most authoritative reference on congressional trends, actions, and political and policy controversies. This award-winning series documents the most fiercely debated issues in recent American politics, providing a unique retrospective analysis of the policies the U.S. Congress. Organized by policy area, each chapter contains summaries of legislative activity, including bills passed, defeated, or postponed. No other authoritative source guides readers seamlessly through the policy output of the national legislature with the breadth, depth, and authority of Congress and the Nation.

Copyright

Appendix

Biographical Index

The names in this index include, alphabetically, all senators, representatives, resident commissioners and territorial delegates who served in Congress from Jan. 3, 1945, through Jan. 3, 1977—the 79th through 94th Congresses. The material is organized as follows: name, relationship to other members and Presidents, party, state (of service), date of birth, date of death (if applicable), congressional service, service as President, Vice President, member of the Cabinet or Supreme Court, governor, Speaker of the House, president pro tempore of the Senate and chairman of the Democratic or Republican National Committee. If member changed parties during his congressional service, party designation is that which applied at the end of such service and breakdown is included with congressional service. Party designation is multiple only if member was elected by two or more parties at the same time. Where service date is left open, member was still serving in 1977.

Dates of service are inclusive, starting in year of service and ending when service ends, usually on Jan. 3 of the given years. Exact date is shown (where available) if member began or ended his service in mid-term.

The major source for this list was the Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1971 compiled under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing. Additional data were obtained from the files of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Congressional Directory, Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections and Weekly Report, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Bridges became minority leader on Jan. 8, 1952, filing the vacancy caused by the death of Wherry on Nov. 29, 1951.Knowland became majority leader on Aug. 4, 1953, filling the vacancy caused by the death of Taft on July 31. 1953.

McCormack became Speaker on Jan. 10, 1962, filling the vacancy caused by the death of Rayburn on Nov. 16, 1961.Albert became majority leader on Jan. 10, 1962, filling the vacancy caused by the elevation of McCormack to the post of Speaker.Boggs became majority whip on Jan. 10, 1962, filling the vacancy caused by the elevation of Albert to the post of majority leader.Johnson became President Nov. 22, 1963, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The vice presidency was vacant for the remainder of the term.Scott became minority leader on Sept. 24, 1969, filling the vacancy caused by the death of Dirksen on Sept. 7, 1969.Griffin became minority whip on Sept. 24, 1969, filling the vacancy caused by the elevation of Scott to the post of minority leader.

Ellender became President Pro Tempore Jan. 22, 1971, filling the vacancy caused by the death of Russell Jan. 21, 1971.Eastland became President Pro Tempore July 28, 1972, filing the vacancy caused by the death of Ellender July 27, 1972.Rhodes became minority leader on Dec. 7, 1973, filling the vacancy caused by the resignation of Ford on Dec. 6, 1973, to become Vice President.Ford became Vice President Dec. 6, 1973, filling the vacancy caused by the resignation of Agnew on Oct. 10, 1973.Rockefeller became Vice President Dec. 19, 1974, filling the vacancy caused by the elevation of Ford to the presidency upon the resignation of Richard M. Nixon on Aug. 9, 1974.

Appendix

Following are the names and dates of terms of chairmen of standing committees of the 80th to the 94th Congresses. Certain subcommittees and special committees are included because of their past importance or interest. The evolution of some committees also is indicated, such as the first one listed, the Senate Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, which originally was the Special Committee on Space and Astronautics.

Small Business, Select Committee to Conduct a Study and Investigation of the Problems of

Walter C. Ploeser (R Mo.-1947-1949)

Wright Patman (D Texas-1949-1953)

William S. Hill (R Colo.-1953-1955)

Wright Patman (D Texas-1955-1963)

Joe L. Evins (D Tenn.-1963-1966)

Small Business, Select Committee on

Joe L. Evins (D Tenn.-1967-1974)

Small Business

Joe L. Evins (D Tenn.-1975-1977)

Standards of Official Conduct

Melvin Price (D III.-1969-1975)

John J. Flynt Jr. (D Ga.-1975- )

Un-American Activities

J. Parnell Thomas (R N.J.-1947-1949)

John S. Wood (D Ga.-1949-1953)

Harold H. Velde (R III.-1953-1955)

Francis E. Walter (D Pa.-1955-1963)

Edwin E. Willis (D La.-1963-1969)

Internal Security (renamed)

Richard H. Ichord (D Mo.-1969-1974)

Veterans' Affairs

Edith Nourse Rogers (R Mass.-1947-1949)

John E. Rankin (D Miss.-1949-1953)

Edith Nourse Rogers (R Mass.-1953-1955)

Olin E. Teague (D Texas-1955-1973)

William Jennings Bryan Dorn (D S.C.-1973-1975)

Ray Roberts (D Texas-1975- )

Ways and Means

Harold Knutson (R Minn.-1947-1949)

Robert L. Doughton (D N.C.-1949-1953)

Daniel A. Reed (R N.Y.-1953-1955)

Jere Cooper (D Tenn.-1955-1957)

Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1958-1975)

Al Ullman (D Ore.-1975- )

Committees of the House, Select Committee on

Richard Bolling (D Mo.-1973-1974)

Crime Investigation, Select Committee on

Claude Pepper (D Fla.-1969-1973)

Intelligence, Select Committee on

Lucien N. Nedzi (D Mich.-1975)

Otis G. Pike (D N.Y. 1975-1976)

Democratic Steering and Policy Committee

Carl Albert (D Okla.-1973-1977)

Democratic National Congressional Committee

Michael J. Kirwan (D Ohio-1947-1971)

Ed Edmondson (D Okla.) and Thomas P. O'Neill

Jr. (D Mass.) 1971-1973

Wayne L. Hays (D Ohio-1973-1976)

James C. Corman (D Calif.-1976- )

Republican Policy Committee

Joseph W. Martin (R Mass.-1947-1959)

John W. Byrnes (R Wis.-1959-1965)

John J. Rhodes (R Ariz.-1965-1973)

Barber B. Conable Jr. (R N.Y.-1973-1977)

National Republican Congressional Committee

Leonard W. Hall (R N.Y.-1947-1953)

Richard M. Simpson (R Pa.-1953-1960)

William E. Miller (R N.Y.-1960-1961)

Bob Wilson (R Calif.-1961-1973)

Robert H. Michel (R III.-1973-1975)

Guy Vander Jagt (R Mich.-1975- )

Republican Committee on Committees

Joseph W. Martin (R Mass.-1947-1953)

Charles A. Halleck (R Ind.-1953-1955)

Joseph W. Martin (R Mass.-1955-1959)

Charles A. Halleck (R Ind.-1959-1965)

Gerald R. Ford (R Mich.-1965-1973)

John J. Rhodes (R Ariz.-1973- )

Joint Committees

Atomic Energy

Sen. Bourke B. Hickenlooper (R Iowa-1947-1949)

Sen. Brien McMahon (D Conn.-1949-1952)

Rep. W. Sterling Cole (R N.Y.-1953-1955)

Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D N.M.-1955-1957)

Rep. Carl T. Durham (D N.C.-1957-1959)

Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D N.M.-1959-1961)

Rep. Chet Holifield (D Calif.-1961-1963)

Sen. John O. Pastore (D R.I.-1963-1965)

Rep. Chet Holifield (D Calif.-1965-1967)

Sen. John O. Pastore (D R.I.-1967-1969)

Rep. Chet Holifield (D Calif.-1969-1971)

Sen. John O. Pastore (D R.I.-1971-1973)

Rep. Melvin Price (D III.-1973-1975)

Sen. John O. Pastore (D R.I.-1975-1977)

Congressional Operations

Rep. Jack Brooks (D Texas-1971-1973)

Sen. Lee Metcalf (D Mont.-1973-1975)

Rep. Jack Brooks (D Texas-1975- )

Defense Production

Sen. Burnet R. Maybank (D S.C.-1950-1953)

Sen. Homer E. Copehart (R Ind.-1953-1955)

Rep. Paul Brown (D Ga.-1955-1957)

Sen. A. Willis Robertson (D Va.-1957-1959)

Rep. Paul Brown (D Ga.-1959-1961)

Sen. A. Willis Robertson (D Va.-1961-1963)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1963-1965)

Sen. A. Willis Robertson (D Va.-1965-1967)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1967-1969)

Sen. John J. Sparkman (D Ala.-1969-1971)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1971-1973)

Sen. John J. Sparkman (D Ala.-1973-1975)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1975-1976)

Rep. Leonor K. Sullivan (D Mo.-1976-1977)

Economic

Sen. Robert A. Taft (R Ohio-1947-1949)

Sen. Joseph C. O'Mahoney (D Wyo.-1949-1953)

Rep. Jesse P. Wolcott (R Mich.-1953-1955)

Sen. Paul H. Douglas (D III.-1955-1957)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1957-1959)

Sen. Paul H. Douglas (D III.-1959-1961)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1961-1963)

Sen. Paul H. Douglas (D III.-1963-1965)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1965-1967)

Sen. William Proxmire (D Wis.-1967-1969)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1969-1971)

Sen. William Proxmire (D Wis.-1971-1973)

Rep. Wright Patman (D Texas-1973-1975)

Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.-1975-1977)

Internal Revenue Taxation

Rep. Harold Knutson (R Minn.-1947-1948)

Sen. Eugene D. Millikin (R Colo.-1948-1949)

Rep. Robert L. Doughton (D N.C.-1949-1950)

Sen. Walter F. George (D Ga.-1950-1951)

Rep. Robert L. Doughton (D N.C.-1951-1952)

Sen. Walter F. George (D Ga.-1952-1953)

Rep. Daniel A. Reed (R N.Y.-1953-1954)

Sen. Eugene D. Millikin (R Colo.-1954-1955)

Rep. Jere Cooper (D Tenn.-1955-1956)

Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D Va.-1956-1957)

Rep. Jere Cooper (D Tenn.-1957-1958)

Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D Va.-1958-1959)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1959-1960)

Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D Va.-1960-1961)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1961-1962)

Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D Va.-1962-1963)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1963-1964)

Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D Va.-1964-1965)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1965-1966)

Sen. Russell B. Long (D La.-1966-1967)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1967-1968)

Sen. Russell B. Long (D La.-1968-1969)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1969-1970)

Sen. Russell B. Long (D La.-1970-1971)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1971-1972)

Sen. Russell B. Long (D La.-1972-1973)

Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.-1973-1974)

Sen. Russell B. Long (D La.-1974-1975)

Rep. Al Ullman (D Ore.-1975-1976)

Sen. Russell B. Long (D La.-1976-1977)

Library

Rep. Samuel N. Friedel (D Md.-1969-1970)

Sen. B. Everett Jordan (D N.C.-1970-1971)

Rep. Wayne L. Hays (D Ohio-1971-1972)

Sen. B. Everett Jordan (D N.C.-1972-1973)

Rep. Lucien N. Nedzi (D Mich.-1973-1974)

Sen. Howard W. Cannon (D Nev.-1974-1975)

Rep. Lucien N. Nedzi (D Mich.-1975-1976)

Sen. Howard W. Cannon (D Nev.-1976-1977)

Printing

Sen. B. Everett Jordan (D N.C.-1969-1970)

Rep. Samuel N. Friedel (D Md.-1970-1971)

Sen. B. Everett Jordan (D N.C.-1971-1972)

Rep. Wayne L. Hays (D Ohio-1972-1973)

Sen. Howard W. Cannon (D Nev.-1973-1974)

Rep. Wayne L. Hays (D Ohio-1974-1975)

Sen. Howard W. Cannon (D Nev.-1975-1976)

Rep. Wayne L. Hays (D Ohio-1976)

Rep. Frank Thompson Jr. (D N.J.-1976-1977)

Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures

Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D Va.-1947-1965)

Rep. George H. Mahon (D Texas-1965-1968)

Reduction of Federal Expenditures (renamed)

Rep. George H. Mahon (D Texas-1969-1975)

Appendix

Controversial Nominations, 1973-1976

Nominations are appointments to federal office by the President which are subject to confirmation by the Senate. Officials appointed in this manner include those in the Executive Branch at the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet levels, federal judges, ambassadors, and members of federal regulatory agencies. Most of the thousands of nominations sent to the Senate each year are those of military officers, whose promotions must be confirmed.

While most nominations win quick Senate approval, some are controversial and can become the subject of heated debate and prolonged consideration.

In 1973 the Senate for the first time since 1950 rejected a nomination to a major independent regulatory agency. Also, in the 1973-76 period, several nominations were rejected in committee either by a direct vote or through inaction. Approval of several other nominees came only after long delays.

Who Is Controversial?

Objections to a nominee can be raised for various reasons:

Personally ObnoxiousSenators sometimes object to appointees for patronage reasons—for example, when a nomination to a local federal job is made without consulting senators of the state concerned. Then a senator may use the objection that the nominee is “personally obnoxious” to him. Usually other senators join in blocking the nomination out of courtesy to their colleague.

Conflict of InterestAnother common Senate objection to a nominee is alleged conflict of interest. This charge may be made if the nominee holds stock in, draws a pension from, or is otherwise connected with a company dealing with the agency to which he has been appointed. In such cases, the nominee often divests himself of the stock or severs his connection with the company.

Partisan PoliticsMany of the controversies over nominations arise from partisan politics or from disagreements between liberals and conservatives. A prime example of this was the nomination in 1976 of Margareta E. White to a seven-year term on the Federal Communications Commission. White—a Republican—did win Senate approval but only after Ford agreed to name a Democrat to the seven-year term and White to a two-year unexpired term. Connections with the Watergate scandal and activities surrounding the re-election of President Nixon doomed several nominees and delayed approval of several others.

IssuesNomination battles occasionally reflect the Senate's concern about major issues of the time. The 1975 nomination of former Rep. Ben B. Blackburn (R) to be chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was rejected in committee. Opponents objected to Blackburn's opposition to civil rights legislation when he served in the House. The environmental record of former Wyoming Gov. Stanley K. Hathaway (R) became an issue during consideration of his nomination to be Secretary of the Interior. Hathaway was confirmed but he resigned six weeks after he took office.

Below are brief accounts of the major controversial nominations from 1973-1976:

William J. CaseyA Senate committee agreed in December to withhold indefinitely any action on President Nixon's nomination of Casey as president of the Export-Import Bank. Casey, under secretary of state for economic affairs since January 1973, previously had served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Critics alleged that Casey tried during 1972 to shield from congressional investigators SEC files concerning the settlement of an antitrust case against International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. (ITT).

William E. ColbyA career CIA official, Colby was selected May 10 to replace James R. Schlesinger as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director. He was confirmed by the Senate Aug. 1 by an 83-13 vote. Colby's direction of the controversial “Phoenix” program in Vietnam during the late 1960s was a focal point of Armed Services Committee hearings and Senate debate on his nomination. The Phoenix program allegedly was part of a covert effort to infiltrate Viet Cong cadres in South Vietnam to obtain information about enemy activities against the Thieu government. Critics claimed the operation was used to torture and murder enemy soldiers.

Ruth L. FarkasPresident Nixon's nomination of Farkas—a donor of $300,000 to his 1972 re-election campaign—as ambassador to Luxembourg early in 1973, sparked a congressional move to curb the practice of awarding ambassadorial posts to large campaign contributors. The Senate approved her nomination March 26 but the controversy surrounding it prompted Congress in July to add a provision to the State Department authorization bill (HR 7645—PL 93-126) requiring ambassadorial nominees to report political contributions during the four years preceding their nomination. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff drew up proposed guidelines for handling non-career ambassadorial appointments. (Details, p. 853)

L. Patrick Gray IIIIn February 1973 President Nixon nominated Gray to be permanent director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Gray had been serving as acting FBI director since the death of J. Edgar Hoover in May 1972. The nomination was withdrawn in April at Gray's request after testimony at his Senate confirmation hearings aroused concern about his lack of independence in the face of White House pressures during the Watergate investigation. He resigned under fire on April 27 and was replaced as acting director by William D. Ruckelshaus.

Henry A. KissingerOn Aug. 22 President Nixon announced the nomination of Kissinger, executive secretary of the National Security Council, as Secretary of State. Controversy over the question of domestic wiretaps for national security dominated public hearings in September before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kissinger's role during 1969-71 in the government's wiretapping of 17 government officials and newsmen to trace leaks of secret information caused considerable concern among committee members and prompted a committee study of the wiretap issue. (Kissinger nomination story, p. 854)

Robert H. MorrisFor the first time since 1950, the Senate struck down a nomination to a major independent federal regulatory agency. The Senate June 13, by a 51-42 vote, recommitted President Nixon's nomination of Morris to be a member of the Federal Power Commission (FPC). Opposition to Morris was based on his 15 years as an attorney for the Standard Oil Co. of California. Opponents made it clear that they found no fault with Morris' professional qualifications or integrity, only his past association with a major firm in an industry the FPC was designed to regulate. Don S. Smith was confirmed in his place Nov. 28.

Howard J. Phillips/Alvin J. ArnettA nomination that never was made aroused controversy in 1973. To carry out the dismantling of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), President Nixon appointed Phillips as acting director of the agency. Because the agency was to be phased out, his name was not sent to Congress for confirmation. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in June that Phillips could no longer serve in the job because he never had been confirmed by the Senate.

William B. SaxbeOn Dec. 10 Nixon submitted the name of Saxbe, then Republican senator from Ohio, to be Attorney General. The Senate confirmed his nomination Dec. 17 by a 75-10 vote, but only after Congress passed special legislation to resolve a question of Saxbe's eligibility for the job. The Constitution provides that no member of Congress during his term may be named to a federal civil office “the emoluments whereof” have been increased during his term. During Saxbe's first months as a senator in 1969, the salary of all Cabinet members, including the Attorney General, had been raised from $35,000 to $60,000. To remove this constitutional bar, Congress at Nixon's request approved legislation (HR 11710—PL 93-178) lowering the Attorney General's salary to the $35,000 level until Jan. 2, 1975. But some senators continued to oppose the nomination on the grounds that the new law was unconstitutional and that the constitutional bar was absolute. (Details, p. 562)

Helmut SonnenfeldtRoutine Senate approval Dec. 19 of the nomination of Sonnenfeldt to be counselor of the State Department contrasted sharply with the controversy which had plagued him for months. Sonnenfeldt, a close aide to Henry Kissinger since 1969, originally had been nominated to be under secretary of the Treasury. That nomination, submitted April 10, became bogged down in the Senate Finance Committee for more than six months because of allegations that Sonnenfeldt had leaked classified material in the 1950s while serving in the State Department. The nomination was finally reported Oct. 30—but only to face more obstacles. Floor action was delayed because of the security leak allegations and reported administration infighting over whether Sonnenfeldt would serve in the Treasury or the State Department. The White House Dec. 7 withdrew the Treasury nomination and nominated Sonnenfeldt to be State Department counselor.

Stanton D. AndersonThe White House announced Oct. 15 that the nomination of Anderson to be ambassador to Costa Rica had been withdrawn at his request. Anderson originally had been nominated by President Nixon. Anderson had been employed in 1972 by the Committee to Re-elect the President and was serving as deputy assistant secretary of state for congressional relations when nominated in April 1974. He was a former director of the Young Republican National Federation. During his confirmation hearing on May 21 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Anderson testified that he had been involved in Nixon's “responsiveness program,” a plan to use federal appointments, grants and contracts to gain support for Nixon's re-election effort.

Melvin A. ConantConant, originally nominated by President Nixon to be assistant administrator for international economic affairs in the Federal Energy Administration (FEA), was on the list of nominations resubmitted by President Ford Nov. 18, following the 31-day October-November congressional election recess. [Under paragraph 6 of Rule XXXVIII of the Senate, any pending nominations must be resubmitted when the Senate adjourns or is in recess for more than 30 days.]

James M. DayPresident Ford Nov. 18 resubmitted the nomination of Day to head the Interior Department's Mine Enforcement and Safety Administration, despite an Oct. 10 decision of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee to take no action on Day. The committee decision had come after the United Mine Workers criticized his performance as acting mine safety administrator, saying he had not enforced safety standards rigorously enough. After Day's name was resubmitted, two Republican members of the committee complained about the administration's failure to consult them. No further action was taken.

Peter M. FlaniganPresident Ford's nomination of former Nixon White House aide Flanigan to be ambassador to Spain was withdrawn by the White House Nov. 16. During confirmation hearings Oct. 2 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton (D Mo.) charged the nominee had been improperly involved in the “sale” of ambassadorships to big contributors to the 1972 Nixon re-election campaign. Flanigan acknowledged that he had singled out Ruth Farkas, a wealthy businesswoman, to Nixon fundraisers as a “good prospect for solicitation” in 1972 before she was named ambassador to Luxembourg. (Farkas nomination, p. 853) There was further opposition to his nomination because of his role in the settlement of a Justice Department antitrust suit against International Telephone & Telegraph Inc. (ITT) and his initial refusal on the grounds of executive privilege to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about that role.

Andrew E. GibsonOn October 29 President Ford named Gibson, a former assistant secretary of commerce (1972-73), as administrator of the Federal Energy Administration. The nomination was withdrawn on Nov. 12 after disclosure by The New York Times that Gibson had been promised $880,000 in severance pay over a 10-year period from his former employer, Interstate Oil Transport Co. of Philadelphia, an oil shipping company with interests in matters he would have to monitor. Gibson asked that his name be withdrawn to avoid lengthy confirmation hearings. Ford then nominated Frank G. Zarb to fill the post.

Daniel T. KingsleyPresident Nixon originally nominated Kingsley in May to be a member of the Federal Power Commission. Kingsley, a special assistant to the President from 1971 to 1974, was involved in Nixon's “responsiveness program” a plan to use federal appointments, grants and contracts to gain support for Nixon's re-election campaign. Kingsley's nomination was sent to the Senate Commerce Committee but hearings were never held. When President Ford resubmitted nominations to the Senate Nov. 18, the list did not include Kingsley's name. The White House announced withdrawal of his name Nov. 19.

Thomas J. MeskillOn the eve of his Aug. 8 resignation, President Nixon nominated outgoing Connecticut Gov. Meskill (R) to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. During a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing Sept. 17, the American Bar Association (ABA) opposed Meskill as unqualified because he had practiced law for less than 10 years and had minimal courtroom experience. Meskill was a member of Congress from 1967 to 1971. Although President Ford resubmitted his name Nov. 18, the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 1974 decided to defer action on the nomination because of an ongoing investigation by the Connecticut legislature into state leasing policies under Meskill's administration. After January and March 1975 hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported Meskill's nomination April 15 to the Senate. Meskill was confirmed on a 54-36 vote, April 22, 1975—eight months after he had been nominated. The last time the Senate had approved a nominee to the circuit court who was opposed by the ABA was in 1965.

Earl J. SilbertPresident Nixon Jan. 29, 1974, nominated Silbert, chief prosecutor in the initial Watergate breakin investigation, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. During hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in April and June, Silbert, then assistant U.S. attorney, was criticized for his handling of the original Watergate investigation and for failing to probe into the higher levels of the administration. In July the committee suspended all further consideration of the nomination until the Nixon impeachment question was resolved.

Ben B. BlackburnPresident Ford's Oct. 6 nomination of former Rep. Blackburn (R Ga. 1967-75), as chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was rejected by the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Nov. 12, on a 5-8 vote. Opponents of the nomination objected to Blackburn's opposition to civil rights legislation during his years in the House, including his vote against the 1968 Fair Housing Act (PL 90-284), which barred racial discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. The bank board, which regulates savings and loan associations, is responsible for enforcement of certain provisions of the 1968 act. He was also criticized for publicly expressed attitudes toward blacks and public housing tenants.

Isabel A. BurgessBurgess, a Nixon appointee, was nominated by President Ford to a second five-year term on the National Transportation Board. The Senate Commerce Committee Nov. 13 voted 7-11 against Burgess. A committee staff report showed that she had bought stock in an airline regulated by the board and accepted free transportation, meals and lodging from other regulated companies. Also, according to the report, she had unusually high travel expenses and absenteeism.

George BushPresident Ford named Bush as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, to replace William E. Colby who had been fired in November in a major Ford administration shake-up. Bush, who had been envoy to the People's Republic of China, was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee Dec. 18 by a 12-4 vote. The panel acted after Ford assured the chairman by letter that he would not propose Bush as his 1976 running mate. Some committee Democrats had strongly opposed the nomination because of Bush's past role in Republican Party affairs, including service as national party chairman in 1973-74. During hearings Bush had refused to forswear acceptance of the number two spot on the national Republican ticket, although he had promised to actively discourage any campaign in his behalf. The Senate confirmed the Bush nomination on Jan. 27, 1976, by a 64-27 vote.

Joseph CoorsCoors, a Colorado beer executive first nominated by President Nixon, was renominated May 16 by President Ford to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Coors was criticized by Commerce Committee members for a possible conflict of interest because of his refusal to resign as director of Television News Inc. (TVN), an independent Coorsfunded news service that did business with public broadcasting stations. Committee members also expressed concern over whether Coors, an outspoken conservative, would attempt prior censorship of public TV programs. The 11-6 vote Oct. 30 to table and thereby kill the nomination was divided largely along party lines.

Nathaniel DavisPresident Ford's Jan. 16 nomination of Davis, director general of the Foreign Service, to serve as assistant secretary of state for African affairs was confirmed March 11 by voice vote. At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, Reps. Andrew Young (D Ga.) and Michael J. Harrington (D Mass.) joined several public witnesses in opposition to Davis. They charged that African nations were deeply concerned and skeptical over the nomination because Davis had been U.S. ambassador to Chile from 1971-73, a period when the Central Intelligence Agency was allegedly involved in covert activities aimed at destabilizing the Salvador Allende regime. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said he showed insensitivity toward developing African nations concerned over subversion by major powers. In August, less than a year after taking office, Davis resigned the top African policy-making post. In October Ford nominated him to be ambassador to Switzerland and the Senate confirmed him Nov. 19, 1975.

Stanley K. HathawayFormer Wyoming Governor Hathaway (R 1967-75) was confirmed as Interior Secretary June 11. The Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee held five days of hearings in April and May during which Hathaway was subjected to unusually close scrutiny. Environmentalists charged that he was biased in favor of industrial growth at the expense of conservation, and questions were raised about the credibility of some of Hathaway's responses concerning his environmental record. However, his nomination was approved by the committee May 21 on a 10-4 vote. On June 11 the Senate confirmed Hathaway by a vote of 60-36, after rejecting an attempt by liberal Democrats to send the nomination back to committee for further consideration. After only six weeks in office, Hathaway resigned July 25, citing fatigue and depression, and was replaced by Thomas S. Kleppe.

James F. Hooper IIIBy indefinitely postponing action on the nomination of Mississippi dairyman Hooper to be director of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Senate in effect killed it in 1975. President Ford's June 12 nomination had encountered difficulty when Senate Public Works hearings were delayed in order to allow time for a congressional investigation into charges that Hooper was involved in questionable business dealings. The nomination was returned to the White House at the end of the first session of the 94th Congress.

William J. KendrickPresident Ford's nomination of Kendrick to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was returned to the White House at the end of the first session of the 94th Congress Kendrick, who had been a director of congressional relations for the commission, was opposed by Clarence Mitchell, legislative director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and by several labor groups because Kendrick had worked as a consultant for the National Association of Manufacturers which, they charged, had opposed major anti-discrimination legislation.

Thomas J. Meskill(See 1974 nomination, p. 1114)

Earl J. Silbert(See 1974 nomination, p. 1114)

George S. BrownThe Senate July 1 by a vote of 57-34 confirmed Air Force General Brown's nomination to a second two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The nomination had been approved June 29 by the Senate Armed Services Committee by a 13-2 vote. However, it was strongly opposed by a group of senators who condemned statements by Brown alleging that the U.S. Jewish community had “undue” influence on Congress in matters of policy affecting the Middle East. Brown had come under fire in November 1974 for remarks at Duke University in which he criticized the power of the “Jewish lobby.” Some members of Congress had called for Brown's resignation, and President Ford had reprimanded him Nov. 13.

George Bush(See 1975 nomination, p. 1115)

S. John ByingtonEnding the year's most spirited confirmation struggle, the Senate May 26 confirmed Byington by a 45-39 vote to a seat on the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Byington, a Michigan attorney, had been deputy director of the Office of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare since March 1974. The Senate Commerce Committee May 4 had shelved Ford's original nomination of Byington to a seven-year term as commission chairman. The same day Ford renominated him to fill a vacancy in a term ending in October 1978. Despite strong objections from consumer and labor groups, the committee May 11 approved Byington for this two-and-one-half year term by a vote of 12-7. The full Senate May 24 rejected the nomination on a 33-37 vote. His supporters protested that too many members had been absent, and they succeeded in forcing a second vote two days later which won him confirmation.

Albert C. HallPresident Ford March 3 nominated Hall to be assistant secretary of the Air Force for research and development. On March 12, after the Senate Armed Services Committee had completed its confirmation hearings, questions were raised about Hall's continuing relationship with his previous employer, Martin-Marietta Corp., during his two periods of Pentagon service. Hall had served in the Pentagon's research and development operation from 1963-65 and had been assistant secretary of defense for intelligence since 1971. Action on the nomination was deferred pending further investigation of the conflict-of-interest question. On March 25 the White House announced that, at Hall's request, President Ford would withdraw the nomination. Hall also resigned as assistant secretary of defense.

James F. Hooper III(See 1975 nomination, p. 1115)

Thomas L. LongshorePresident Ford's nomination of Longshore, an Alabama Power Company executive, to fill a vacant seat on the three-member Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) board was killed Aug. 24. Earlier in the year another TVA nominee, James F. Hooper III, had been rejected (see above). The Senate Public Works Committee, voting 6-8, rejected a motion to send the nomination of Longshore to the full Senate with the recommendation that it be confirmed. Critics raised questions of conflict of interest and contended that Longshore had been too closely aligned with private utility interests over the past 15 years to become the third and pivotal board member who often determined the vote on major issues.

Graham A. MartinThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sept. 10 indefinitely postponed hearings on the nomination of Martin to be President Ford's personal representative in negotiations on the future political status of Micronesia, a U.S. trust territory. A Foreign Service Officer, Martin had been ambassador to South Vietnam from 1973 to 1975, when the country fell to North Vietnamese control. During the April 1975 Communist siege of Saigon, he had been criticized for his role in the American evacuation, including charges that he procrastinated in evacuating U.S. personnel.

George F. Murphy Jr.The threat of a filibuster by Democratic liberals during the waning hours of the 94th Congress blocked Senate action on President Ford's nomination of Murphy as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Confirmation of Murphy, executive director of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, had been recommended by the committee Oct. 1 following a short closed-door meeting despite opposition from environmentalists and public issues groups. Critics raised questions about his long service on a congressional committee which exercised oversight of the agency and formerly of the Atomic Energy Commission. Opponents also felt his nomination shortly before Congress was scheduled to adjourn left too little time to explore his views on nuclear policies.

William B. PoffThe Senate Judiciary Committee May 5 tabled, and thus killed, the nomination of Poff to a U.S. district court judgeship for the western district of Virginia. Poff, nominated April 1, fell victim to the tradition of “senatorial courtesy,” an unwritten custom that makes it possible for one senator to block a nomination for a federal office within his state. Poff's nomination was opposed by Sen. William Lloyd Scott (R Va.). Scott's preferred candidate for the judgeship, Glen M. Williams, subsequently was nominated and confirmed by the Senate Sept. 17.

Warren B. RudmanFormer New Hampshire Attorney General Rudman was nominated to be chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) by President Ford on Feb. 4, just 20 days before the 1976 New Hampshire presidential primary. Democratic and Republican opponents of the nomination claimed it was a tactic to boost Ford's chances in the primary. The nominee June 11 asked that his name be withdrawn.

Margareta E. White/Joseph R. FogartyResolving a dispute that had become embroiled in election-year politics, the Senate Commerce Committee Sept. 8 approved, and the Senate by voice vote confirmed, the nominations of one Democrat and one Republican to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Ford in July had nominated Republican White, director of the White House Office of Telecommunications, to a full seven-year term on the FCC. White ran into trouble during confirmation hearings over a possible conflict of interest with her tax lawyer husband's partnership in a Washington law firm that handled cases before the FCC.

Appendix

Presidential Vetoes, 1973-1976

The presidential veto and the threat of its use have historically been the tools of a President seeking to fashion legislation to his liking.

In 1973, President Nixon had the support of enough senators or representatives to sustain eight of his nine regular vetoes of public bills. Only on his veto of the bill to limit presidential war powers did Congress prevail. A tenth bill was pocket vetoed after Congress adjourned.

In 1974, President Nixon vetoed only two public bills. That brought to 40 the total public bills which he vetoed during his term of office.

During his first five months in office, President Ford vetoed an unusually large number of bills. By Jan. 9, 1975, he had vetoed 24 public bills. His first veto was on Aug. 13, 1974, four days after he took office. Of the 24 vetoes, four were overridden by Congress.

After the 93rd Congress adjourned Dec. 20, 1974, Ford pocket vetoed 11 bills. A bill is pocket vetoed if, after Congress adjourns, the President fails to sign it within 10 days, excluding Sundays, from the time he received it. A regular veto can be effected only when Congress is in session. In that case the bill is returned to Congress and both chambers must override the veto by a two-thirds vote of members present and voting if the bill is to be enacted into law.

In 1975, Ford vetoed 17 public bills, and Congress was able to override only four of those vetoes. Of the 17 bills vetoed, seven directly involved energy and economic policies. Not one of them was overridden.

In 1976, Ford vetoed 20 public bills. Four of the 1976 vetoes were overridden, bringing to 12 the number of vetoes overridden during Ford's term of office, making him the most overridden President since Andrew Johnson. The majority of the 1976 vetoes did not involve major legislation.

93rd Congress, First Session

S 7

To extend basic vocational rehabilitation grants to the states for fiscal 1973-74 and to create a new program to assist the severely handicapped.

The House and Senate March 15 approved S 7 by voice votes. President Nixon March 27 vetoed S 7, his second veto of a handicapped aid bill in six months. Two days later, Nixon in a nationwide radio and television address appealed to citizens to write their representatives and senators to vote against “more spending so you won't have to pay higher prices or taxes.”

The Senate April 3 sustained the President's veto by a 60-36 vote—four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 3298

To restore the Agriculture Department rural water and sewer grant program which had been terminated by the administration as of Jan. 1, 1973.

The House March 1 by a 297-54 vote and the Senate March 22 by a 66-22 vote passed HR 3298. In his April 5 veto message, Nixon defended his Jan. 1 program cutoff as “part of our determined effort to hold down taxes and combat inflation.” Nixon had three main objections to HR 3298: the federal intrusion into what he considered a local responsibility; the program's “distinct flavor of pork barrel”; and a “grave constitutional question” raised by the bill. Nixon contended that HR 3298 conflicted with Article II of the Constitution by forcing the executive to spend money appropriated by Congress. He promised to make rural grants and loans available under other laws.

The House April 10 sustained the veto by a 225-189 vote—51 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 7447

To appropriate supplemental fiscal 1973 funds for several departments and agencies. The bill contained a provision barring use of any funds in the bill for continued bombing of Cambodia.

House passage of the bill May 10 marked the first time since the United States intervened militarily in Southeast Asia that a majority of that body went on record in favor of terminating U.S. involvement. Direct U.S. involvement in Vietnam ended in March 1975.

The House June 25 adopted the conference report on HR 7447 by voice vote, timing the vote to avoid the diplomatic embarrassment of handing Nixon a major legislative defeat during the visit of Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev a week earlier. The Senate June 26 adopted the conference report by an 81-11 vote. President Nixon vetoed the bill June 27 to avoid “the enactment of a measure which would seriously undermine the chances for a lasting peace in Indochina and jeopardize our efforts to create a stable, enduring structure of peace around the world.”

Later the same day, the House sustained the veto on a 241-173 vote—35 votes short of the two-thirds majority vote needed to override.

With the fiscal year drawing to a close and hints at compromise from the White House, Congress cleared a second fiscal 1973 supplemental appropriations bill (HR 9055). Instead of an immediate ban, HR 9055 banned use of the bill's funds and previous appropriations to support U.S. combat activities in Indochina after Aug. 15, 1973. The President signed HR 9055 July 1 (PL 93-50).

S 518

To require Senate confirmation of incumbent and future directors and deputy directors of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The House May 1 by voice vote and the Senate May 3 by a 73-19 vote passed S 518. The President May 18 vetoed the bill, which he said presented “a grave violation of the fundamental doctrine of separation of Powers.” Nixon termed the measure “a back door method” to force removal of incumbent OMB director Roy L. Ash and Deputy Director Fred V. Malek.

The Senate May 22 overrode the veto by a 62-22 vote—six more than the two-thirds majority needed. The following day the House sustained the veto by a 236-178 vote—40 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

Congress in 1974 completed action on another bill (S 37—PL 93-250) requiring Senate confirmation only of future directors and deputy directors of OMB.

S 504

To authorize $185-million for an emergency medical services program in fiscal 1974-76 to aid local emergency care systems and to block the administration's plan to phase out inpatient care at Public Health Service (PHS) hospitals.

The House July 17 by a 306-111 vote and the Senate July 19 by a 97-0 vote adopted the conference report on S 504. In his Aug. 1 veto message, Nixon reiterated his opposition to the PHS hospitals, saying they had “outlived their usefulness.” He also objected to the new medical program, calling it “a narrow, categorical one, thrusting the federal government” into areas of state and local responsibility. The authorization level, he added, was “far in excess” of what could be “prudently used.”

The following day the Senate easily overrode the Nixon veto on a 77-16 roll-call vote. But the House Sept. 12 sustained the President's veto by a 273-144 vote—five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 7935

To raise the hourly minimum wage for non-farm workers and to extend coverage to approximately 6.7 million workers including domestics and federal, state and local government employees, and to remove overtime exceptions for several categories of employees.

The Senate Aug. 2 by a 62-28 vote and the House Aug. 3 by a 253-152 vote adopted the conference report on HR 7935. President Nixon Sept. 6 vetoed HR 7935 saying, “It would cause unemployment. It is inflationary. And it hurts those who can least afford it.”

The House Sept. 19 sustained the President's veto by a key roll-call vote of 259-164 (R 51-135, D 208-29)—23 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

S 1672

To extend the lending authority of the Small Business Administration. The bill would have restored for two years federal programs offering low-interest disaster relief loans.

The House Sept. 6 and the Senate Sept. 10 by voice votes adopted the conference report on S 1672. In his Sept. 22 veto message, President Nixon charged that provisions of the bill would “reinstate practices that have proven unworthy in the past.”

The Senate Sept. 25 sustained the President's veto by a 59-36 vote—five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

S 1317

To authorize fiscal 1974 appropriations for the U.S. Information Agency. The bill contained a provision to require congressional access to certain USIA documents.

The House Oct. 4 by voice vote and the Senate Oct. 10 by a 62-29 vote adopted the conference report on S 1317. In his Oct. 23 veto message, Nixon objected to the congressional access provision of the bill as an unconstitutional encroachment on executive prerogatives.

The Senate Oct. 30 sustained the President's veto by a 54-42 vote—10 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

H J Res 542

To limit the President's authority to commit U.S. forces abroad without congressional approval.

The Senate Oct. 10 by a 75-20 vote and the House Oct. 12 by a 238-123 vote adopted the conference report on H J Res 542. In his Oct. 24 veto message President Nixon labeled the resolution “unconstitutional and dangerous.”

Congress Nov. 7 handed Nixon one of the greatest defeats of his presidency. By a cliff-hanging key vote of 284-135 (R 86-103, D 198-32)—four more than the necessary two-thirds majority—the House overrode the President's veto of H J Res 542. The Senate followed suit a few hours later with a 75-18 vote to override, 13 votes over the required two-thirds majority. It was the first successful reversal of a presidential veto in the 93rd Congress. The bill became PL 93-148.

HR 10511

To permit use of Urban Mass Transportation Administration grants for the purchase of buses by public authorities. To protect private charter bus companies, local authorities must agree not to operate charter bus service outside the urban area.

The House and Senate Dec. 21 by voice votes passed HR 10511. President Nixon Jan. 3, 1974, pocket vetoed the bill. In announcing the veto, Nixon described the bill as “an anti-transit measure” which would limit local officials' flexibility to use federal mass transit funds as they saw fit.

93rd Congress, 2nd Session

Nixon Vetoes

S 2589

To give the President authority to impose rationing and mandatory energy saving measures, to ease clean air standards and to reduce the price of domestic crude oil that was exempted from price controls.

The Senate Feb. 19 by a 67-32 vote and the House Feb. 27 by a 258-151 vote adopted the conference report on S 2589. In his March 6 veto message on S 2589, the omnibus energy emergency bill, President Nixon argued that the bill “solves none of the problems, threatens to undo the progress we have already made, and creates a host of new problems.”

The Senate March 6 sustained the veto by a 58-40 vote—eight votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 15472

To appropriate $13.4-billion for agricultural, environmental and consumer protection programs for fiscal 1975. The total was $2.8-billion more than the administration's budget request.

The House July 30 by a vote of 351-41 and the Senate the same day by a 67-26 vote adopted the conference report on HR 15472. In one of his last official acts, President Nixon August 8 vetoed HR 15472, saying the bill “presents a clear and distinct threat to our fight against inflation and cannot be accepted.” It was the 40th veto of a public bill during his presidency.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto. Instead, it began work on a new bill (HR 16901—PL 93-563).

Ford Vetoes

HR 5094

To provide for the reclassification and upgrading of deputy U.S. marshals which would, in effect, give them a pay raise.

The Senate July 24 and the House July 29 passed the bill by voice votes. In his Aug. 12 veto message, President Ford said the bill “would be creating serious pay inequities with other federal law enforcement personnel, thus violating fundamental principles of fairness.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 11873

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage and assist states in carrying out programs of animal health research.

The Senate July 15 and the House Aug. 1 adopted the conference report on HR 11873 by voice votes. President Ford in his Aug. 14 veto message said the bill “would add further to the federal taxpayers' burdens without significantly meeting national needs and would only add to inflationary pressures within the economy.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 15323

To extend to Aug. 1, 1982, the federal program to insure the public against losses in the event of a nuclear accident.

The House Sept. 24 by a 376-10 vote and the Senate Sept. 30 by voice vote adopted the conference report on the bill. While President Ford had no objections to the main provisions of the bill, he based his Oct. 12 veto of HR 15323 on a provision that would allow Congress to disapprove the measure after it had been signed by the President.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 15301

To restructure the financing of the existing federally operated railroad workers' retirement system, authorized under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937.

The Senate Sept. 25 by a 86-1 vote and the House Sept. 30 by voice vote passed the bill. President Ford Oct. 12 vetoed the measure because it proposed to fund the $8.5-billion deficit in the railroad retirement fund with Treasury funds. “At a time when the taxpayer is already carrying the double burden of taxes and inflation, legislation such as this is most inappropriate,” Ford said in his veto message.

The House Oct. 15 overrode the veto by a 360-12 vote—112 votes more than needed. The Senate Oct. 16 overrode the veto by a 72-1 vote—23 votes more than the two-thirds majority required. It was the first successful override of a Ford veto. The bill became PL 93-445.

H J Res 1131

To continue appropriations for fiscal 1975 for federal departments and agencies whose appropriations had not yet been cleared by Congress. The resolution included an amendment prohibiting funds for further U.S. military assistance to Turkey until the President certified that the nation was in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Foreign Military Sales Act and that substantial progress had been made in negotiations with the Ankara regime regarding its military forces on Cyprus.

The House Oct. 7 agreed to the conference report on H J Res 1131 by a 330-25 vote. The key issue of aid to Turkey was considered separately and added to the measure by voice vote. The Senate Oct. 9 adopted the conference report by voice vote and then added the House-passed language on the Turkish aid question by a vote of 62-16. Attacking “reckless acts that prevent progress toward a Cyprus settlement,” Ford vetoed H J Res 1131 Oct. 14. The measure “would...imperil our relationships with our Turkish ally and weaken us in the crucial eastern Mediterranean. It directly jeopardizes the NATO alliance,” Ford added.

The House Oct. 15 sustained the veto by a 223-135 vote—16 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override. Following a Ford veto of a second Turkish aid ban measure (H J Res 1163, below), a third bill (H J Res 1167—PL 93448) delaying the aid ban until Dec. 10, 1974, became law Oct. 17, 1974.

H J Res 1163

To continue appropriations for fiscal 1975 for federal agencies and departments whose appropriations had not yet been cleared by Congress. The resolution contained an amendment authorizing the President to delay a ban on military aid to Turkey until Dec. 10, 1974, if he determined it would help negotiations on the Cyprus conflict.

The House by a 287-30 vote and the Senate by a 45-23 vote passed H J Res 1163 Oct. 16. President Ford Oct. 17 vetoed the resolution, repeating his objections to a similar measure (H J Res 1131) vetoed earlier. (See above)

The House sustained the veto within minutes of the Ford announcement by a 161-83 vote—two vote short of the required two-thirds majority.

Later that day, a more specific compromise version (H J Res 1167—PL 93-448) passed the House by a 191-33 vote and the Senate by voice vote.

HR 12471

To amend the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 to facilitate public access to information obtained and maintained by the federal government. Amendments contained provisions which allowed federal judges to review classified material to determine whether it was properly classified.

The Senate Oct. 1 by voice vote and the House Oct. 7 by a vote of 349-2 adopted the conference report to HR 12471. Ford Oct. 17 vetoed the bill, calling it “unconstitutional and unworkable.”

The House Nov. 20 overrode the President's veto by a vote of 371-31—103 votes more than the two-thirds majority required. The Senate Nov. 21 voted to override by a 65-27 vote—three more than the required two-thirds majority. The bill became PL 93-502.

HR 11541

To strengthen federal standards regulating the granting of power and communication line rights-of-way across land in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Senate Sept. 18 and the House Oct. 7 passed HR 11541 by voice vote. In his Oct. 22 veto message, President Ford objected to language requiring the Interior Secretary to review “all reasonable alternatives” to using wildlife refuges, and permitting use of the refuges only if they were “the most feasible and prudent alternative.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto. Instead, it cleared for the President Nov. 21 a similar bill (HR 17434—PL 93-509) stripped of the objectionable provisions of HR 11541.

HR 13342

To amend the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 to broaden regulations in an attempt to curb continued exploitation of both migrant farm workers and farmers by farm labor contractors.

The House Oct. 11 and the Senate Oct. 16 cleared HR 13342 by voice votes. President Ford vetoed the measure Oct. 29 because he objected to nongermane provisions raising the salaries and positions of Labor Department personnel. Ford compared his veto of HR 13342 to his veto of HR 5094, the first of his administration. (See above)

To extend the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for one year through fiscal 1976, with provisions to strengthen the blind vendor program and to hold a White House Conference on the Handicapped in 1976.

The Senate Oct. 10 by voice vote and the House Oct. 16 by a 334-0 vote adopted the conference report on HR 14225. President Ford Oct. 29 vetoed the bill without an official message and returned it to Congress. Ford maintained that with Congress in recess his action constituted a pocket veto which Congress under the Constitution had no power to override.

But based on opinions of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress that Ford's return of the measure constituted a normal veto, the House Nov. 20 overrode the veto on a 398-7 vote—128 more than the two-thirds majority needed to override. The Senate Nov. 21 voted 90-1 to override—30 more than the two-thirds majority required. But to avoid a lengthy legal battle over the veto dispute, the House and Senate Nov. 26 by voice vote cleared an identical bill (HR 17503). Faced with a certain veto override, Ford Dec. 7 signed HR 17503 into law (PL 93-516).

HR 12628

To authorize increased educational benefits for Korean War and Vietnam-era veterans.

The House by a 388-0 vote and the Senate by voice vote Oct. 10 adopted the conference report on HR 12628. President Ford objected to the bill's “excessive increases and liberalization of veterans' education and training benefits” and vetoed the bill Nov. 26. It was the first veto by any President of a veterans' education bill.

The House Dec. 3 overrode the veto on a 394-10 vote—124 more than the required two-thirds majority. The Senate the same day overrode the veto by a 90-1 vote—30 more than the two-thirds majority needed. The bill became PL 93-508.

HR 6191

To suspend until June 30, 1977, the duties on imports of zinc materials and to provide tax relief to certain 1972 flood victims.

The House Oct. 11 and the Senate Oct. 15 by voice votes adopted the conference report on HR 6191, one of several so-called “Christmas-tree”—or special interest—amendments to minor tax bills. President Ford Nov. 26 vetoed the bill, objecting to provisions offering “favored treatment to a select group of taxpayers.”

The House Dec. 3 sustained the veto by a 249-150 vote—17 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.

S 3537

To authorize a revised Willow Creek Dam Project in Oregon and provide for advance payment of the federal share of the cost to relocate the water system of the nearby town of Heppner.

The Senate Aug. 2 and the House Dec. 3 passed S 3537 by voice vote. President Ford vetoed the measure Dec. 17. In his veto message, Ford cited objections of the Department of the Army that the bill authorized departures from standard procedure.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 11929

To amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to provide that expenditures for pollution control facilities be credited against required power investment return payments and repayments.

The Senate Dec. 4 and the House Dec. 9 adopted the conference report on HR 11929 by voice votes. President Ford Dec. 23 pocket vetoed the bill.

HR 14214

To authorize $1.9-billion in fiscal years 1975-76 for five basic federal health programs—community mental health programs, family planning, migrant health centers, community health services for the medically underserved in rural and inner-city areas and general health services formula grants to the states.

The Senate Dec. 9 by voice vote and the House Dec. 10 by a 372-14 vote adopted the conference report on HR 14214. President Ford Dec. 23 pocket vetoed the bill, citing “excessive” authorizations as his justification. In addition, Ford said, “These services...are available in a more equitable and less restrictive manner than many of the programs authorized in HR 14214.”

HR 8193

To require that a rising percentage of oil and oil products imported into the United States be carried on U.S. flagships.

The House Oct. 10 by a 219-140 vote and the Senate Dec. 16 by a 44-40 vote adopted the conference report on HR 8193. President pocket vetoed the bill Dec. 30, calling the measure inflationary. He said that “although the bill would undoubtedly benefit a limited group of our working population, such benefit would entail disproportionate costs and produce undesirable effects which could extend into other areas and industries.”

S 425

To regulate the strip mining of coal and the reclamation of mined lands.

The House Dec. 13 and the Senate Dec. 16 adopted the conference report on S 425 by voice votes. President Ford Dec. 30 pocket vetoed S 425. In his veto message Ford said, “I find that the adverse impact of this bill on our domestic coal production is unacceptable at a time when the nation can ill afford significant losses from this critical energy resource. It would also further complicate our battle against inflation.”

S 3341

To raise the maximum per diem allowance and mileage rates for civilian government employees traveling on official business.

The House Dec. 16 and the Senate Dec. 17 agreed to the conference report on the bill by voice votes. President Ford pocket vetoed S 3341 Dec. 31. In his veto message Ford objected to a provision that provided travel reimbursement to disabled veterans.

HR 17085

To authorize $654-million in fiscal years 1975-77 for nurse training programs.

The Senate Dec. 19 and the House Dec. 20 completed action on HR 17085 by voice votes. President Ford Jan. 2 pocket vetoed the measure, saying the bill's cost was “excessive.”

S 4206

To provide federal price support for milk at not less than 85 per cent of parity which would, in effect, raise milk prices by approximately six cents a half gallon.

The Senate Dec. 19 by voice vote and the House Dec. 20 by a 205-58 vote, under suspension of the rules, passed the bill. President Ford pocket vetoed S 4206 Jan. 4, 1975. In his veto message, Ford said the bill “would be highly inflationary to consumers...,” and “would ultimately be damaging to the dairy industry and milk producers.”

HR 2933

To make imported filbert nuts subject to the same grade and quality standards as domestic filberts.

The House Dec. 16, under suspension of the rules, and the Senate Dec. 19 passed HR 2933 by voice votes. President Ford Jan. 4, 1975, pocket vetoed the bill, saying it “could unnecessarily increase prices for filbert products” and would be “prejudicial to the interests of American trade policy.”

S 3943

To extend the time during which farmers could request and receive cost-sharing assistance under the federal Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP) and the Rural Environmental Conservation Program (RECP) for fiscal 1973 and 1974.

The Senate Oct. 8 and the House Dec. 19, under suspension of the rules, passed S 3943 by voice votes. President Ford Jan. 4, 1975, pocket vetoed the bill, which he called “unnecessary” since sufficient funds already had been provided for the purposes described in the bill.

HR 11897

To name the United States courthouse and federal office building in Grand Rapids, Mich., the President Gerald R. Ford Federal Office Building.”

The House Dec. 17 and the Senate Dec. 19 passed the bill by voice votes. President Ford Jan. 4, 1975, pocket vetoed HR 11897. Although he said he appreciated the honor, Ford said he intended to continue the policy of past administrations and not endorse the naming of federal buildings. Particularly, he said, he did not want to establish the precedent of naming a federal office building after a sitting President.

HR 13296

To authorize appropriations for the Maritime Administration and to require the federal government to reimburse U.S. flag fishing vessel owners for damage to their equipment by foreign flag vessels.

The Senate Dec. 19 and House Dec. 20 by voice votes adopted the conference report to HR 13296. President Ford pocket vetoed the bill Jan. 4, 1975, because he objected to the reimbursement provision. He said the provisions would cause administrative problems and that international procedures existed through which damage claims against foreign nationals could be processed.

94th Congress, 1st Session

HR 1767

To suspend for 90 days the President's authority to adjust imports of any product affecting national security, and to nullify President Ford's announced increases in the fees paid on imported oil and petroleum products.

The House Feb. 5 by a 309-114 vote and the Senate Feb. 19 by a 66-28 vote passed HR 1767. President Ford March 4 vetoed the bill. But in his veto message, Ford offered a compromise. If the House and Senate would agree to “workable and comprehensive national energy legislation,” Ford promised to defer import fee increases for 60 days.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 4296

To increase target prices and loan levels for the 1975 crops of cotton, wheat, corn and other feed grains; to require a mandatory loan program for soybeans; and to set minimum price supports for milk and other dairy products at 80 per cent of parity through March 31, 1976, with provisions for quarterly adjustments.

The Senate April 17 by voice vote and the House April 22 by a 248-166 vote adopted the conference report on HR 4296. The President May 1 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said the bill “would be costly not only to consumers and taxpayers but to American farmers in the long run.”

The House May 13 sustained the veto by a 245-182 vote—40 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 25

To set minimum federal standards for state strip mining control programs, to establish a reclamation fund to finance rehabilitation of “orphaned” lands which had been stripped and abandoned before enactment of the law, to establish a new office of surface mining in the Interior Department, to provide for public participation in the development of the state programs and to ensure enforcement, and to protect the rights of surface land-owners in the West whose land lay atop federally owned coal.

The Senate May 5 by voice vote and the House May 7 by a 293-115 vote adopted the conference report on HR 25. President Ford May 20 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said the bill would cause a loss of 36,000 jobs, a reduction in coal production, an increase in consumers' electric bills and an increase in foreign oil dependency.

The House June 10 sustained the veto by a 278-143 vote—three votes less than the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 4481

To appropriate $5.3-billion to create more than one million jobs in the private and public sectors. The bill exceeded President Ford's requests for jobless aid by $3.3-billion.

The House May 14 by a 293-109 vote and the Senate May 16 by voice vote adopted the conference report on HR 4481. President Ford May 28 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said the benefits of HR 4481 would be felt too late to improve the jobless picture and that it could contribute to a new round of inflation.

The House June 4 sustained the veto by a 277-145 vote—five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 5357

To authorize $98.1-million through fiscal year 1979 for international and domestic travel promotion by the Commerce Department's U.S. Travel Service.

The House May 13 by a 287-132 vote and the Senate May 15 by voice vote passed HR 5357. President Ford May 28 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford particularly objected to the provision to promote and manage a domestic tourism program, which Ford said should be the responsibility of the private sector.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto. Instead, it cleared a similar bill (S 2003—PL 94-55) authorizing $92.5-million with the added priviso that tourist promotion be in the public interest and not compete with city and state activities.

HR 4485

To provide emergency federal assistance to stimulate housing construction and home buying.

The House June 5 by a 253-155 vote and the Senate June 11 by a 72-24 vote adopted the conference report on HR 4485. President Ford June 24 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said that certain provisions were inequitable, the bill could not be implemented without “substantial delay” and the bill was too expensive.

The House June 25 sustained the veto by a 268-157 vote—16 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override. By June 27 Congress had cleared a new measure (HR 5398—PL 94-50) tailored to meet the President's objections.

HR 4035

To extend federal oil price control authority and to require a rollback of uncontrolled domestic oil prices.

The Senate July 16 by a 57-40 vote and the House July 17 by a 239-172 vote adopted the conference report on HR 4035. President Ford July 21 vetoed the bill, on the grounds that “it would increase petroleum consumption, cut domestic production, increase reliance on insecure petroleum imports and avoid the issue of phasing out unwieldy price controls.”

The House July 16 by a 370-42 vote and the Senate July 17 by an 80-15 vote adopted the conference report to HR 5901. President Ford July 25 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford criticized the measure as “too much to ask the taxpayers—and our economy—to bear.”

The House Sept. 9 overrode the veto by a 379-41 vote—99 votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override. The Senate Sept. 10 overrode the veto by a 88-12 vote—21 votes more than the two-thirds majority needed. The measure became PL 94-94.

S 66

To authorize appropriations of $2-billion for fiscal years 1976-78 for federal health services programs, including family planning, nurse training, community mental health centers and migrant health care. The measure exceeded Ford's requests by $1.1-billion for fiscal years 1976-77.

The Senate July 14 and the House July 16 adopted the conference report to S 66 by voice votes. President Ford July 26 vetoed the bill, objecting to the cost of the measure in his veto message.

The Senate July 26 overrode the veto by a 67-15 vote—12 votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override. The House July 29 overrode the veto by a 384-43 [Page 1122] vote—99 votes more than the two-thirds majority needed. The bill became PL 94-63.

S 1849

To extend federal oil price control and petroleum allocation authority for six months, to March 1, 1976, and to extend until Dec. 31, 1975, the authority of the Federal Energy Administration to order power plants to shift to using coal rather than oil or natural gas as their fuel.

The Senate July 15 by a 62-29 vote and the House July 31 by a 303-117 vote passed S 1849. President Ford Sept. 9 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said he vetoed S 1849 to save American jobs, to protect the nation's economic stability and national security and to ensure the development of a national energy program.

The Senate Sept. 10 sustained the veto by a 61-39 vote—six votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 9497

To change the formula by which tobacco price supports are calculated to a marketing year basis from the existing calendar year basis, in effect, to increase tobacco price supports.

The House Sept. 11 and the Senate Sept. 15 by voice votes passed HR 9497. President Ford Sept. 30 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said the bill “would adversely affect our tobacco exports, lower farm income in the long run and increase federal spending at a critical time in our economic recovery.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 4222

To amend and extend the school lunch and other child nutrition programs.

The House Sept. 18 by a 380-7 vote and the Senate Sept. 19 by a voice vote adopted the conference report on HR 4222. President Ford Oct. 3 vetoed the bill, charging that “by extending aid to families not in need, this bill would add $1.2-billion to my budget proposals for the current fiscal year.” By congressional estimates, the measure required $2.7-billion in fiscal 1976 outlays.

The House Oct. 7 overrode the veto by a 397-18 vote—120 more than the two-thirds majority required to override a veto. The Senate the same day overrode the veto by a 79-13 vote—17 more than the two-thirds majority needed. The bill became PL 94-105.

HR 12

To increase the size of the Executive Protective Service (EPS) and to provide for the protection of foreign diplomatic missions.

The Senate Oct. 28 and the House Nov. 19 by voice votes completed action on HR 12. President Ford Nov. 29 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said, “I am concerned that this bill would be but a first step toward a permanent and wider expansion of the role of EPS nationally.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 5559

To extend for six months through June 1976 emergency tax reductions enacted for 1975.

The House and Senate Dec. 17 by voice votes adopted the conference report on HR 5559. President Ford Dec. 17 vetoed the bill, calling it “half-way legislation.” In his veto message, Ford demanded that any tax cut be “coupled with a cut in the run-away growth of federal spending.”

The House Dec. 18 sustained the veto by a 265-157 vote—17 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to override.

HR 8069

To appropriate $36-billion for fiscal year 1976 for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The measure was $915-million over Ford's fiscal 1976 budget request.

The House Dec. 4 by a 321-91 vote and the Senate Dec. 8 by voice vote adopted the conference report on HR 8069. President Ford Dec. 19 vetoed the bill, objecting to its cost and a provision to increase permanent federal employment by 8,000.

The House Jan. 27 overrode the veto by a 310-113 vote—28 votes more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. The Senate Jan. 28 overrode the veto on a 70-24 vote—seven more than the two-thirds majority needed. The bill became PL 94-206.

S 2350

To include the Secretary of the Treasury as a member of the National Security Council (NSC).

The Senate Oct. 9 and the House Dec. 17 by voice votes passed S 2350. President Ford Dec. 31 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said the measure was unnecessary since he could invite to NSC meetings those Cabinet officials he deemed necessary, and that the “flexibility and usefulness” of the council might be diminished if the membership were increased.

The Senate Jan. 22 overrode the veto on a 72-16 vote—13 votes more than the two-thirds majority needed to override. The House made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 5900

To permit labor unions to picket an entire construction site in protest of a dispute with one contractor working on that site (common-site picketing), and to establish a government-sponsored committee, composed of construction labor and management representatives, to try to bring stability to the construction industry.

The House Dec. 11 by a 229-189 vote and the Senate Dec. 15 on a 52-43 vote adopted the conference report on HR 5900. President Ford Jan. 2, 1976, vetoed the bill, concluding that HR 5900 “will lead to loss of jobs and work hours for the construction trades, higher costs for the public, and further slowdown in a basic industry.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

94th Congress, 2nd Session

S J Res 121

To require quarterly adjustments of the support price for milk and an increase in the support price to a minimum of 85 per cent of parity.

The House Dec. 17 by a 307-111 vote and the Senate Dec. 18 by voice vote adopted the conference report on S J Res 121. President Ford Jan. 30 vetoed the bill, his third of a measure involving quarterly milk price support adjustments. In his veto message, Ford said S J Res 121 would “saddle taxpayers with additional spending..., stimulate excessive production of milk...and result in unnecessarily high consumer prices.”

The Senate Feb. 4 sustained the veto on a 37-51 vote—22 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

HR 5247

To authorize $6.1-billion for public works employment and anti-recession aid to state and local governments.

The Senate Dec. 17, 1975, by voice vote and the House Jan. 29, 1976, by a 321-80 vote adopted the conference report on HR 5247. President Ford Feb. 13 vetoed the bill, calling it “little more than an election year pork barrel.”

The House Feb. 19 overrode the veto by a 319-98 vote—41 votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override. The Senate later that day sustained the veto by a 63-35 vote—three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

HR 9803

To authorize $125-million through Sept. 30, 1976, for federally supported state day care programs for lower-income families.

The House March 23 by a 316-72 vote and the Senate March 24 by a 59-30 vote adopted the conference report on HR 9803. President Ford April 6 vetoed the bill, saying he opposed “unwarranted federal interference in states' administration of these programs.”

The House overrode the veto May 4 by a 301-101 vote—33 votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override. The Senate sustained the veto May 5 by a 60-34 vote—three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

HR 8617

To give federal employees the right to participate in partisan political campaigns and to run for local, state or federal office.

The House March 30 by a 241-164 vote and the Senate March 31 by a 54-36 vote adopted the conference report on the bill. President Ford April 12 vetoed the bill, calling it “bad for the employee, bad for the government and bad for the public.”

The House April 29 sustained the veto by a 243-160 vote—26 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to override.

S 2662

To authorize $3.1-billion for arms sales and foreign military aid for fiscal 1976.

The House April 28 by a 215-185 vote and the Senate the same day by a 51-35 vote adopted the conference report on S 2662. President Ford May 7 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said the bill raised “fundamental constitutional problems” and included “a number of unwise restrictions that would seriously inhibit my ability to implement a coherent and consistent foreign policy.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 12384

To authorize $3.3-billion for military construction projects for fiscal 1977 and to require the Department of Defense to provide Congress with a year's advance notice before closing or significantly cutting the work force at any major military base in the United States.

The House June 16 and the Senate June 17 adopted the conference report on HR 12384 by voice votes. President Ford July 2 vetoed the bill, objecting to the provisions on military base closings and reductions as a limitation of his powers.

The House July 22 overrode the veto by a 270-131 vote—two more than the two-thirds majority required to override a veto. The Senate later the same day sustained the veto on a 51-42 vote—11 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

S 391

To set new federal coal leasing procedures.

The House Jan. 21 passed its version of the bill by a 344-51 vote and then substituted its language for S 391. By voice vote on June 21, the Senate accepted the Housepassed version and cleared the bill. President Ford July 3 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said S 391 “would inhibit coal production on federal lands, probably raise prices for consumers and ultimately delay our achievement of energy independent.”

The Senate Aug. 3 overrode the veto on a 76-17 vote—14 votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override. The House Aug. 4 overrode the veto on a 316-85 vote—49 more than the two-thirds majority needed. The bill became PL 94-377.

S 3201

To authorize $3.95-billion through Sept. 30, 1977, for public works projects and financially pressed state and local governments.

The Senate June 16 by a 70-25 vote and the House June 23 by a 328-83 vote adopted the conference report on S 3201. President Ford July 6 vetoed the bill in spite of a cut of more than $2-billion from the price tag of a similar bill (HR 5247) vetoed by Ford in February. In his veto message, Ford said, “Bad policy is bad whether the inflation price tag is $4-billion or $6-billion.”

The Senate July 21 overrode the veto by a vote of 73-24—eight votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override a veto. The House July 22 overrode the veto by a vote of 310-96—39 votes more than the two-thirds majority needed.

HR 12567

To authorize $51.5-million for the period July 1, 1976, to Sept. 30, 1978, to carry out provisions of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (PL 93-498) establishing a comprehensive federal fire prevention and control program within the Commerce Department. The total fiscal 1977 authorization of $20.5-million was more than double the administration's budget request of $10.2-million.

The Senate June 15 passed HR 12567 by voice vote. The House June 21 agreed to Senate amendments by voice vote. The President vetoed the bill July 7.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

S 2447

To exempt members of Congress from state and local tax liability other than from the state from which they were elected.

The Senate Feb. 18 by voice vote and the House July 20 by a 310-84 vote under suspension of the rules, passed S 2447. President Ford Aug. 3 vetoed the bill, objecting to federal interference in state matters.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 12944

To authorize $19.7-million to extend the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pesticide programs from April to September 1977, and to authorize either chamber of Congress to veto any pesticide regulation issued by the EPA.

The House Aug. 3 by a 347-33 vote and the Senate Aug. 5 by voice vote passed HR 12944. President Ford Aug. 13 vetoed the bill, arguing that the congressional veto provision was unconstitutional.

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 8800

To authorize $160-million, plus $60-million in loan guarantees, for a six-year program to develop and demonstrate electric cars suitable for mass production.

The Senate Aug. 26 and the House Aug. 31 by voice vote adopted the conference report on HR 8800. President Ford Sept. 13 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford said, “I am not prepared to commit the federal government to this type of a massive spending program which I believe private industry is best able to undertake.”

The House Sept. 16 overrode the veto on a 307-101 vote—35 votes more than the two-thirds majority required to override. The Senate Sept. 17 overrode the veto on a 53-20 vote—four more than the two-thirds majority needed.

HR 5465

To provide special retirement benefits for certain non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) who are adversely affected by Indian preference requirements.

The Senate Sept. 1 and the House Sept. 10 adopted the conference report on HR 5465 by voice votes. President Ford Sept. 24 vetoed the bill, calling it “discriminatory and costly.”

Congress made no attempt to override the veto.

HR 13655

To authorize $100-million for fiscal 1977 and 1978 for the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) to develop alternatives to the internal combustion automobile engine.

The House Aug. 31 by voice vote and the Senate Sept. 13 by a 58-19 vote adopted the conference report on HR [Page 1124] 13655. President Ford Sept. 24 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford objected that HR 13655 would duplicate existing ERDA programs, invade “areas private industry is best equipped to pursue,” and require a “massive spending program.”

The House Sept. 29 overrode the veto on a 293-102 vote—29 more than the two-thirds majority required to override a veto. The Senate sustained the veto the same day on a 41-35 vote—10 short of the two-thirds majority needed.

HR 14232

To appropriate $56.6-billion to operate the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) for fiscal year 1977. The measure exceeded the administration's budget request by $4-billion.

The House Sept. 16 by a vote of 256-114 and the Senate Sept. 17 by a 47-21 vote adopted the conference report on a controversial amendment banning use of funds in the bill to pay for abortions. Earlier, the House Aug. 10 by a 279-100 vote and the Senate Aug. 25 by voice vote approved the pending levels in HR 14232. President Ford Sept. 29 vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford objected to the bill solely on budgetary grounds.

The House Sept. 30 overrode the bill by a vote of 312-93—42 votes more than the two-thirds majority needed to override. The Senate the same day overrode the veto on a 67-15 vote—12 more than needed to override. The bill became PL 94-439.

HR 5446

To implement U.S. obligations under the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

The House April 5 by a 366-1 vote, under suspension of the rules, and the Senate Sept. 24 by voice vote passed HR 5446. President Ford Oct. 10 pocket vetoed the bill. In his veto message, Ford objected to a provision that empowered either house of Congress to veto future amendments to the international agreement.

HR 10073

To provide for the mandatory inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) of domesticated rabbits slaughtered for human consumption.

The House Nov. 4, 1975, under suspension of the rules, and the Senate Sept. 30, 1976, by voice votes passed HR 10073. President Ford Oct. 17 pocket vetoed the bill. In his veto message Ford said, “The limited benefit to be derived by a relative few consumers of rabbit meat cannot be justified in terms of the cost to the taxpayer.”

S 2081

To encourage long-range planning and appraisal of the nation's land and water resources by directing the Agriculture Department's Soil Conservation Service regularly to assess the quality and potential of such resources.

The House and Senate Oct. 1 by voice votes completed action on S 2081. President Ford Oct. 19 pocket vetoed the bill, saying in his veto message that it “would violate the principles of fiscal responsibility, minimum federal regulation, separation of powers, and constitutional government....”

S 3553

To define the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in suits against foreign states and the circumstances in which foreign states are immune from lawsuits.

The Senate Sept. 30 and the House Oct. 1 by voice votes passed S 3553. President Ford Oct. 21 pocket vetoed the bill for technical reasons. In their haste to adjourn, the House and Senate each passed two identical bills on foreign sovereign immunities; Ford elected to veto the Senate bill and sign the identical House-passed measure (HR 11315—PL 94-583).

S 1437

To establish three categories under which the federal government acquires property and services and furnishes assistance to state and local governments and other recipients: procurement contracts, grant agreements and cooperative agreements.

The House Sept. 29 and the Senate Oct. 1 by voice votes completed action on S 1437. President Ford Oct. 22 pocket vetoed the bill, saying it could result in “limiting the flexibility of federal agencies in administering their programs and creating a large number of technical difficulties for them.”

Appendix

Presidents and Their Cabinets—1933-1977

Franklin Delano Roosevelt—March 4, 1933-April 12, 1945

Secretary of State

Cordell Hull (D Tenn.)

March 4, 1933-Nov. 30, 1944

Edward R. Stettinius Jr. (D Va.)

Dec. 1, 1944-June 27, 1945

Secretary of the Treasury

William H. Woodin (D N.Y.)

March 5, 1933-Dec. 31, 1933

Henry Morgenthau Jr. (D N.Y.)

Jan. 1, 1934-July 22, 1945

Secretary of War

George H. Dern (D Utah)

March 4, 1933-Aug. 27, 1936

Harry H. Woodring (D Kan.)

Sept. 25, 1936-June 20, 1940

Henry L. Stimson (R N.Y.)

July 10, 1940-Sept. 21, 1945

Attorney General

Homer S. Cummings (D Conn.)

March 4, 1933-Jan. 2, 1939

Frank Murphy (D Mich.)

Jan. 2, 1939-Jan. 18, 1940

Robert H. Jackson (D N.Y.)

Jan. 18, 1940-July 10, 1941

Francis Biddle (D Pa.)

Sept. 5, 1941-June 30, 1945

Postmaster General

James A. Farley (D N.Y.)

March 4, 1933-Aug. 31, 1940

Frank C. Walker (D Pa.)

Sept. 10, 1940-May 8, 1945

Secretary of the Navy

Claude A. Swanson (D Va.)

March 4, 1933-July 7, 1939

Charles Edison (D N.J.)

Aug. 5, 1939-June 24, 1940

Frank Knox (R Ill.)

July 11, 1940-April 28, 1944

James V. Forrestal (D N.Y.)

May 19, 1944-Sept. 17, 1947

Secretary of the Interior

Harold L. Ickes (D Ill.)

March 4, 1933-Feb. 15, 1946

Secretary of Agriculture

Henry A. Wallace (D Iowa)

March 4, 1933-Sept. 4, 1940

Claude R. Wickard (D Ind.)

Sept. 5, 1940-June 29, 1945

Secretary of Commerce

Daniel C. Roper (D S.C.)

March 4, 1933-Dec. 23, 1938

Harry L. Hopkins (D N.Y.)

Dec. 24, 1938-Sept. 18, 1940

Jesse H. Jones (D Texas)

Sept. 19, 1940-March 1, 1945

Henry A. Wallace (D Iowa)

March 2, 1945-Sept. 20, 1946

Secretary of Labor

Frances Perkins (D N.Y.)

March 4, 1933-June 30, 1945

Harry S Truman—April 12, 1945-Jan. 20, 1953

Secretary of State

Edward R. Stettinius Jr. (D Va.)

Dec. 1, 1944-June 27, 1945

James F. Byrnes (D S.C.)

July 3, 1945-Jan. 21, 1947

George C. Marshall (Pa.)

Jan. 21, 1947-Jan. 20, 1949

Dean G. Acheson (D Conn.)

Jan. 21, 1949-Jan. 20, 1953

Secretary of the Treasury

Henry Morganthau Jr. (D N.Y.)

Jan. 1, 1934-July 22, 1945

Fred M. Vinson (D Ky.)

July 23, 1945-June 23, 1946

John W. Snyder (D Mo.)

June 25, 1946-Jan. 20, 1953

Secretary of War

Henry L. Stimson (R N.Y.)

July 10, 1940-Sept. 21, 1945

Robert Porter Patterson (R N.Y.)

Sept. 27, 1945-July 18, 1947

Kenneth C. Royall (D N.C.)

July 19, 1947-Sept. 17, 1947

Secretary of Defense

James V. Forrestal (D N.Y.)

Sept. 17, 1947-March 27, 1949

Louis A. Johnson (D W.Va.)

March 28, 1949-Sept. 19, 1950

George C. Marshall (Pa.)

Sept. 21, 1950-Sept. 12, 1951

Robert A. Lovett (R N.Y.)

Sept. 17, 1951-Jan. 20, 1953

Dates given are for actual service in the particular office, which may vary from dates of confirmation by the Senate. In some cases individuals served interim appointments before they were confirmed.The War and Navy Departments were merged in 1947 into the National Military Establishment. See note 2 for details.The National Military Establishment, headed by a Secretary of Defense, was created Sept. 18, 1947, by the National Security Act of 1947. The act combined the War and Navy Departments under the loose supervision of the Secretary of Defense. However the lack of authority granted to the Secretary led to administrative problems. These were resolved by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 which reorganized the National Military Establishment into the Department of Defense and consolidated authority in the office of the Secretary of Defense, thus the office predates the department by two years.

Strauss served an interim appointment as Secretary of Commerce. On June 19, 1959 the Senate refused to confirm his nomination.The Health, Education and Welfare Department was established April 11, 1953.

Secretary of Defense

Robert S. McNamara (R Mich.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Feb. 29, 1968

Attorney General

Robert F. Kennedy (D Mass.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Sept. 3, 1964

Postmaster General

J. Edward Day (D Calif.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Sept. 10, 1963

John A. Gronouski (D Wis.)

Sept. 10, 1963-Aug. 30, 1965

Secretary of the Interior

Stewart L. Udall (D Ariz.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Agriculture

Orville L. Freeman (D Minn.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Commerce

Luther H. Hodges (D N.C.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Jan. 15, 1965

Secretary of Labor

Arthur J. Goldberg (D Wash., D.C.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Sept. 20, 1962

W. Willard Wirtz (D Ill.)

Sept. 25, 1962-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Abraham A. Ribicoff (D Conn.)

Jan. 21, 1961-July 13, 1962

Anthony J. Celebrezze (D Ohio)

July 31, 1962-Aug. 17, 1965

Lyndon B. Johnson—Nov. 22, 1963-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of State

Dean Rusk (D N.Y.)

Jan. 20, 1961-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of the Treasury

Douglas Dillon (R N.J.)

Jan. 21, 1961-April 1, 1965

Henry H. Fowler (D Va.)

April 1, 1965-Dec. 20, 1968

Joseph W. Barr (D Ind.)

Dec. 21, 1968-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Defense

Robert S. McNamara (R Mich.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Feb. 29, 1968

Clark M. Clifford (D Md.)

March 1, 1968-Jan. 20, 1969

Attorney General

Robert F. Kennedy (D Mass.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Sept. 3, 1964

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach (D Wash., D.C.)

Sept. 4, 1964-Oct. 2, 1966

Ramsey Clark (D Texas)

Oct. 3, 1966-Jan. 20, 1969

Postmaster General

John A. Gronouski (D Wis.)

Sept. 10, 1963-Aug. 30, 1965

Lawrence F. O'Brien (D Mass.)

Nov. 3, 1965-April 26, 1968

W. Marvin Watson (D Texas)

April 26, 1968-Jan. 22, 1969

Secretary of the Interior

Stewart L. Udall (D Ariz.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Jan. 20, 1969

The Housing and Urban Development Department was established Sept. 9, 1965.

Secretary of Agriculture

Orville L. Freeman (D Minn.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Commerce

Luther H. Hodges (D N.C.)

Jan. 21, 1961-Jan. 15, 1965

John T. Connor (D N.J.)

Jan. 18, 1965-Jan. 31, 1967

Alexander B. Trowbridge (D Wash., D.C.)

June 14, 1967-March 1, 1968

C. R. Smith (D N.Y.)

March 6, 1968-Jan. 19, 1969

Secretary of Labor

W. Willard Wirtz (D Ill.)

Sept. 25, 1962-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Anthony J. Celebrezze (D Ohio)

July 31, 1962-Aug. 17, 1965

John W. Gardner (R N.Y.)

Aug. 18, 1965-March 1, 1968

Wilbur J. Cohen (D Md.)

March 22, 1968-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Robert C. Weaver (D Wash., D.C.)

Jan. 18, 1966-Dec. 31, 1968

Robert C. Wood (D Mass.)

Jan. 2, 1969-Jan. 20, 1969

Secretary of Transportation

Alan C. Boyd (D Fla.)

Jan. 12, 1967-Jan. 20, 1969

The Department of Transportation was established Oct. 15, 1966.

Richard M. Nixon—Jan. 20, 1969-Aug. 9, 1974

Secretary of State

William P. Rogers (R Md.)

Jan. 22, 1969-Sept. 3, 1973

Henry A. Kissinger (Wash., D.C.)

Sept. 30, 1973-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of the Treasury

David M. Kennedy (R Utah)

Jan. 22, 1969-Feb. 1, 1971

John B. Connally (D Texas)

Feb. 11, 1971-June 12, 1972

George P. Shultz (R Va.)

June 12, 1972-May 8, 1974

William E. Simon (R N.J.)

May 8, 1974-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of Defense

Melvin R. Laird (R Wis.)

Jan. 20, 1969-Jan. 20, 1973

Elliot L. Richardson (R Mass.)

Jan. 29, 1973-April 30, 1973

James R. Schlesinger (R Va.)

July 2, 1973-Nov. 19, 1975

Attorney General

John N. Mitchell (R N.Y.)

Jan. 21, 1969-March 1, 1972

Richard G. Kleindienst (R Ariz.)

March 2, 1972-May 24, 1973

Elliot L. Richardson (R Mass.)

May 25, 1973-Oct. 20, 1973

William B. Saxbe (R Ohio)

Jan. 4, 1974-Feb. 3, 1975

Postmaster General

Winton M. Blount (R Ala.)

Jan. 22, 1969-June 30, 1970

Secretary of the Interior

Walter J. Hickel (R Alaska)

Jan. 24, 1969-Nov. 25, 1970

Rogers C. B. Morton (R Md.)

Jan. 29, 1971-April 30, 1975

Secretary of Agriculture

Clifford M. Hardin (R Neb.)

Jan. 21, 1969-Nov. 17, 1971

Earl L. Butz (R Ind.)

Dec. 2, 1971-Oct. 4, 1976

Secretary of Commerce

Maurice H. Stans (R N.Y.)

Jan. 21, 1969-Feb. 15, 1972

Peter G. Peterson (R Neb.)

Feb. 29, 1972-Feb. 1, 1973

Frederick B. Dent (R S.C.)

Feb. 2, 1973-March 26, 1975

Secretary of Labor

George P. Shultz (R Ill.)

Jan. 22, 1969-July 1, 1970

James D. Hodgson (R Minn.)

July 2, 1970-Feb. 1, 1973

Peter J. Brennan (D N.Y.)

Feb. 2, 1973-March 15, 1975

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Robert H. Finch (R Calif.)

Jan. 21, 1969-June 23, 1970

Elliot L. Richardson (R Mass.)

June 24, 1970-Jan. 29, 1973

Caspar W. Weinberger (R Calif.)

Feb. 12, 1973-Aug. 8, 1975

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

George W. Romney (R Mich.)

Jan. 21, 1969-Feb. 2, 1973

James T. Lynn (R Ohio)

Feb. 2, 1973-Feb. 9, 1975

Secretary of Transportation

John A. Volpe (R Mass.)

Jan. 22, 1969-Jan. 20, 1973

Claude S. Brinegar (R Calif.)

Feb. 2, 1973-March 6, 1975

Gerald R. Ford—Aug. 9, 1974-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of State

Henry A. Kissinger (Wash., D.C.)

Sept. 30, 1973-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of the Treasury

William E. Simon (R N.J.)

May 8, 1974-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of Defense

James R. Schlesinger (R Va.)

July 2, 1973-Nov. 19, 1975

Donald H. Rumsfeld (R Ill.)

Nov. 19, 1975-Jan. 20, 1977

Attorney General

William B. Saxbe (R Ohio)

Jan. 4, 1974-Feb. 3, 1975

Edward H. Levi (D Ill.)

Feb. 7, 1975-Jan. 20, 1977

The Post Office ceased to be a Cabinet office in 1970 with the creation of the U.S. Postal Service as an independent government corporation.

Knebel served on interim appointment. His name was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation.

Secretary of Labor

Peter J. Brennan (D N.Y.)

Feb. 2, 1973-March 15, 1975

John T. Dunlop (D Mass.)

March 18, 1975-Jan. 31, 1976

W. J. Usery Jr. (D Ga.)

Feb. 10, 1976-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Caspar W. Weinberger (R Calif.)

Feb. 12, 1973-Aug. 8, 1975

F. David Mathews (D Ala.)

Aug. 8, 1975-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

James T. Lynn (R Ohio)

Feb. 2, 1973-Feb. 9, 1975

Carla Anderson Hills (R Calif.)

March 10, 1975-Jan. 20, 1977

Secretary of Transportation

Claude S. Brinegar (R Calif.)

Feb. 2, 1973-March 6, 1975

William T. Coleman Jr. (R Pa.)

March 7, 1975-Jan. 20, 1977

Appendix

President Nixon's 1973 State of the Union Message

I. OVERVIEW

Following is the text of President Nixon's Feb. 2, 1973, message to Congress on the State of the Union. The message was described by Nixon as an “overview” and was followed by five other State of the Union Messages on specific subject areas. The messages were not delivered in person.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

The traditional form of the President's annual report giving “to the Congress Information of the State of the Union” is a single message or address. As the affairs and concerns of our Union have multiplied over the years, however, so too have the subjects that require discussion in State of the Union Messages.

This year in particular, with so many changes in Government programs under consideration—and with our very philosophy about the relationship between the individual and the State at an historic crossroads—a single, all-embracing State of the Union Message would not appear to be adequate.

I have therefore decided to present my 1973 State of the Union report in the form of a series of messages during these early weeks of the 93rd Congress. The purpose of this first message in the series is to give a concise overview of where we stand as a people today, and to outline some of the general goals that I believe we should pursue over the next year and beyond. In coming weeks, I will sent to the Congress further State of the Union reports on specific areas of policy including economic affairs, natural resources, human resources, community development and foreign and defense policy.

`A Fresh Approach'

The new course these messages will outline represents a fresh approach to Government: an approach that addresses the realities of the 1970s, not those of the 1930s or of the 1960s. The role of the Federal Government as we approach our third century of independence should not be to dominate any facet of American life, but rather to aid and encourage people, communities and institutions to deal with as many of the difficulties and challenges facing them as possible, and to help see to it that every American has a full and equal opportunity to realize his or her potential.

If we were to continue to expand the Federal Government at the rate of the past several decades, it soon would consume us entirely. The time has come when we must make clear choices—choices between old programs that set worthy goals but failed to reach them and new programs that provide a better way to realize those goals; and choices, too, between competing programs—all of which may be desirable in themselves but only some of which we can afford with the finite resources at our command.

Because our resources are not infinite, we also face a critical choice in 1973 between holding the line in Government spending and adopting expensive programs which will surely force up taxes and refuel inflation.

Finally, it is vital at this time that we restore a greater sense of responsibility at the State and local level, and among individual Americans.

Where We Stand

The basic state of our Union today is sound, and full of promise. We enter 1973 economically strong, militarily secure and, most important of all, at peace after a long and trying war.

America continues to provide a better and more abundant life for more of its people than any other nation in the world. We have passed through one of the most difficult periods in our history without surrendering to despair and without dishonoring our ideals as a people.

Looking back, there is a lesson in all this for all of us. The lesson is one that we sometimes had to learn the hard way over the past few years. But we did learn it. That lesson is that even potentially destructive forces can be converted into positive forces when we know how to channel them, and when we use common sense and common decency to create a climate of mutual respect and good-will.

By working together and harnessing the forces of nature, Americans have unlocked some of the great mysteries of the universe. Men have walked the surface of the moon and soared to new heights of discovery. This same spirit of discovery is helping us to conquer disease and suffering that have plagued our own planet since the dawn of time.

By working together with the leaders of other nations, we have been able to build a new hope for lasting peace—for a structure of world order in which common interest outweights old animosities, and in which a new generation of the human family can grow up at peace in a changing world.

At home, we have learned that by working together we can create prosperity without fanning inflation; we can restore order without weakening freedom.

The Challenges We Face

These first years of the 1970s have been good years for America.

Our job—all of us together—is to make 1973 and the years to come even better ones. I believe that we can. I believe that we can make the years leading to our Bicentennial the best four years in American history.

But we must never forget that nothing worthwhile can be achieved without the will to succeed and the strength to sacrifice. Hard decisions must be made, and we must stick by them.

In the field of foreign policy, we must remember that a strong America—an America whose word is believed and whose strength is respected—is essential to continued peace and understanding in the world. The peace with honor we have achieved in Vietnam has strengthened this basic American credibility. We must act in such a way in coming years that this credibility will remain intact, and with it, the world stability of which it is so indispensable a part.

At home, we must reject the mistaken notion—a notion that has dominated too much of the public dialogue for too long—that ever bigger Government is the anser to every problem.

We have learned only too well that heavy taxation and excessive Government spending are not a cure-all. In too many cases, instead of solving the problems they were aimed at they have merely placed an ever heavier burden on the shoulders of the American taxpayer, in the form of higher taxes and a higher cost of living. At the same time they have deceived our people because many of the [Page 1126] intended beneficiaries received far less than was promised, thus undermining public faith in the effectiveness of Government as a whole.

The time has come for us to draw the line. The time has come for the responsible leaders of both political parties to take a stand against overgrown Government and for the American taxpayer. We are not spending the Federal Government's money, we are spending the taxpayer's money, and it must be spent in a way which guarantees his money's worth and yields the fullest possible benefit to the people being helped.

The answer to many of the domestic problems we face is not higher taxes and more spending. It is less waste, more results and greater freedom for the individual American to earn a rightful place in his own community—and for States and localities to address their own needs in their own ways, in the light of their own priorities.

By giving the people and their locally elected leaders a greater voice through changes such as revenue sharing, and by saying “no” to excessive Federal spending and higher taxes, we can help achieve this goal.

Coming Messages

The policies which I will outline to the Congress in the weeks ahead represent a reaffirmation, not an abdication, of Federal responsibility. They represent a pragmatic rededication to social compassion and national excellence, in place of the combination of good intentions and fuzzy follow-through which too often in the past was thought sufficient.

In the field of economic affairs, our objectives will be to hold down taxes, to continue controlling inflation, to promote economic growth, to increase productivity, to encourage foreign trade, to keep farm income high, to bolster small business, and to promote better labor-management relations.

In the area of natural resources, my recommendations will include programs to preserve and enhance the environment, to advance science and technology, and to assure balanced use of our irreplaceable natural resources.

In developing human resources, I will have recommendations to advance the Nation's health and education, to improve conditions of people in need, to carry forward our increasingly successful attacks on crime, drug abuse and injustice, and to deal with such important areas of special concern as consumer affairs. We will continue and improve our Nation's efforts to assist those who have served in the Armed Services in Viet-Nam through better job and training opportunities.

We must do a better job in community development—in creating more livable communities, in which all of our children can grow up with fuller access to opportunity and greater immunity to the social evils and blights which now plague so many of our towns and cities. I shall have proposals to help us achieve this. I shall also deal with our defense and foreign policies, and with our new approaches to the role and structure of Government itself.

Considered as a whole, this series of messages will be a blueprint for modernizing the concept and the functions of American Government to meet the needs of our people.

Coverting it into reality will require a spirit of cooperation and shared commitment on the part of all branches of the Government, for the goals we seek are not those of any single party or faction, they are goals for the betterment of all Americans. As President, I recognize that I cannot do this job alone. The Congress must help, and I pledge to do my part to achieve a constructive working relationship with the Congress. My sincere hope is that the executive and legislative branches can work together in this great undertaking in a positive spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.

Working together—the Congress, the President and the people—I am confident that we can translate these proposals into an action program that can reform and revitalize American Government and, even more important, build a better life for all Americans.

RICHARDNIXONThe White House,

February 2, 1973.

II. NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Following is the White House text of the State of the Union message on natural resources and the environment sent to Congress Feb. 15, 1973.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

With the opening of a new Congress and the beginning of a new Presidential term come fresh opportunities for achievement in America. To help us consider more adequately the very special challenges of this new year, I am presenting my 1973 State of the Union Message in a number of sections.

Two weeks ago I sent the first of those sections to the Congress—an overview reporting that “the basic state of our Union today is sound, and full of promise.”

Today I wish to report to the Congress on the state of our natural resources and environment. It is appropriate that this topic be first of our substantive policy discussions in the State of the Union presentation, since nowhere in our national affairs do we have more gratifying progress—nor more urgent, remaining problems.

There was a time when Americans took our natural resources largely for granted. For example, President Lincoln observed in his State of the Union message for 1862 that “A nation may be said to consist of its territory, its people, and its laws. The territory is the only part which is of certain durability.”

In recent years, however, we have come to realize that our “territory”—that is, our land, air, water, minerals, and the like—is not of “certain durability” after all. We have learned that these natural resources are fragile and finite, and that many have been seriously damaged or despoiled.

When we came to office in 1969, we tackled this problem with all the power at our command. Now there is encouraging evidence that the United States has moved away from the environmental crisis that could have been and toward a new era of restoration and renewal. Today, in 1973, I can report to the Congress that we are well on the way to winning the war against environmental degradation—well on the way to making our peace with nature.

Years of Progress

While I am disappointed that the 92nd Congress failed to act upon 19 of my key natural resources and environment proposals, I am pleased to have signed many of the proposals I supported into law during the past four years. They have included air quality legislation, stengthened water quality and pesticide control legislation, new authorities to control noise and ocean dumping, regulations to prevent oil and other spills in our ports and waterways, and legislation establishing major national recreation areas at America's Atlantic and Pacific gateways, New York and San Francisco.

On the organizational front, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has reformed programs and decision-making processes in our Federal agencies and has given citizens a greater opportunity to contribute as decisions are made. In 1970 I appointed the first Council on Environmental Quality—a group which has provided active leadership in environmental policies. In the same year, I established the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide more coordinated and vigorous environmental management. Our natural resource programs still need to be consolidated, however, and I will again submit legislation to the Congress to meet this need.

The results of these efforts are tangible and measurable. Day by day, our air is getting cleaner; in virtually every one of our major cities the levels of air pollution are declining. Month by month, our water pollution problems are also being conquered, our noise and pesticide problems are coming under control, our parklands and protected wilderness areas are increasing.

Year by year, our commitment of public funds for environmental programs continues to grow; it was increased four-fold in the last four years. In the area of water quality alone, it has grown fifteen-fold. In fact, we are now buying new facilities nearly as fast as the construction industry can build them. Spending still more money would not buy us more pollution control facilities but only more expensive ones.

In addition to what Government is doing in the battle against pollution, our private industries are assuming a steadily growing share of responsibility in this field. Last year industrial spending for pollution control jumped by 50 percent, and this year it could reach as much as $5 billion.

All nations, regardless of their economic systems, share to some extent in the environmental problem—but with vigorous United States leadership, joint efforts to solve this global problem are showing results. The United Nations has adopted the American proposal for a special U.N. environmental fund to coordinate and support international environmental programs.

Some 92 nations have concluded an international convention to control the ocean dumping of wastes. An agreement is now being forged in the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization to end the intentional discharge of oil from ships into the ocean. This objective, first recommended by my Administration, was adopted by the NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society.

Representatives of almost 70 countries are meeting in Washington this week at our initiative to draft a treaty to protect endangered species of plant and animal wildlife. The U.S.-USSR environmental cooperation agreement which I signed in Moscow last year makes two of the world's greatest industrial powers allies against pollution. Another agreement which we concluded last year with Canada will help to clean up the Great Lakes.

Demestically, we can also be proud of the steady progress being made in improving the quality of life in rural and agricultural America. We are beginning to break away from the old, rigid system of controls which eroded the farmer's freedom through Government intrusion in the marketplace. The new flexibility permitted by the Agricultural Act of 1970 has enabled us to help expand farm markets and take advantage of the opportunity to increase exports by almost 60 percent in just three years. Net farm income is at an all-time high, up from $16.1 billion in 1971 to $19 billion in 1972.

Principles To Guide Us

A record is not something to stand on; it is something to build on. And in this field of natural resources and the environment, we intend to build diligently and well. As we strive to transform our concern into action, our efforts will be guided by five basic principles:

The first principle is that we must strike a balance so that the protection of our irreplaceable heritage becomes as important as its use. The price of economic growth need not and will not be deterioration in the quality of our lives and our surroundings.

Second, because there are no local or State boundaries to the problems of our environment, the Federal Government must play an active, positive role. We can and will set standards and exercise leadership. We are providing necessary funding support. And we will provide encouragement and incentive for others to help with the job. But Washington must not displace State and local initiative, and we shall expect the State and local governments—along with the private sector—to play the central role in making the difficult, particular decisions which lie ahead.

Third, the costs of pollution should be more fully met in the free marketplace, not in the Federal budget. For example, the price of pollution control devices for automobiles should be borne by the owner and the user and not by the general taxpayer. The costs of eliminating pollution should be reflected in the costs of goods and services.

Fourth, we must realize that each individual must take the responsibility for looking after his own home and workplace. These daily surroundings are the environment where most Americans spend most of their time. They reflect people's pride in themselves and their consideration for their communities. A person's backyard is not the domain of the Federal Government.

Finally, we must remain confident that America's technological and economic ingenuity will be equal to our environmental challenges. We will not look upon these challenges as insurmountable obstacles. Instead, we shall convert the so-called crisis of the environment into an opportunity for unprecedented progress.

Controlling Pollution

We have made great progress in developing the laws and institutions to clean up pollution. We now have formidable new tools to protect against air, water and noise pollution and the special problem of pesticides. But to protect ourselves fully from harmful contaminants, we must still close several gaps in governmental authority.

I was keenly disappointed when the last Congress failed to take action of many of my legislative requests related to our natural resources and environment. In the coming weeks I shall once again send these urgently needed proposals to the Congress so that the unfinished environmental business of the 92nd Congress can become the environmental achievements of the 93rd.

Among these 19 proposals are eight whose passage would give us much greater control over the sources of pollution:

Toxic SubstancesMany new chemicals can pose hazards to humans and the environment and are not well regulated. Authority is now needed to provide adequate testing standards for chemical substances and to restrict or prevent their distribution if testing confirms a hazard.

Hazardous WastesLand disposal of hazardous wastes has always been widely practiced but is now becoming more prevalent because of strict air and water pollution control programs. The disposal of the extremely hazardous wastes which endanger the health of humans and other organisms is a problem requiring direct Federal regulation. For other hazardous wastes, Federal standards should be established with guidelines for State regulatory programs to carry them out.

Safe Drinking WaterFederal action is also needed to stimulate greater State and local action to ensure high standards for our drinking water. We should establish national drinking water standards, with primary enforcement and monitoring powers retained by the State and local agencies as well as a Federal retirement that suppliers notify their customers of the quality of their water.

Sulfur Oxides Emissions ChargeWe now have national standards to help curtail sulfur emitted into the atmosphere from combustion, refining, smelting and other processes, but sulfur oxides continue to be among our most harmful air pollutants. For that reason, I favor legislation which would allow the Federal Government to impose a special financial charge on those who produce sulfur oxide emissions. This legislation would also help to ensure that low-sulfur fuels are allocated to areas where they are most urgently needed to protect the public health.

Sediment ControlSediment from soil erosion and runoff continues to be a pervasive pollutant of our waters. Legislation is needed to ensure that the States make the control of sediment from new construction a vital part of their water quality programs.

Controlling Environmental Impact of TransportationAs we have learned in recent years, we urgently need a mass transportation system not only to relieve urban congestion but also to reduce the concentration of pollution that are too often the result of our present methods of transportation. Thus I will continue to place high priority upon my request to permit use of the Highway Trust Fund for mass transit purposes and to help State and local governments achieve air quality, conserve energy, and meet other environmental objectives.

United Nations Environmental FundLast year the United Nations adopted my proposal to establish a fund to coordinate and support international environmental programs. My 1974 budget includes a request for $10 million as our initial contribution toward the Fund's five-year goal of $100 million, and I recommend authorizing legislation for this purpose.

Ocean Dumping ConventionAlong with 91 other nations, the United States recently concluded an international convention calling for regulation of ocean dumping. I am most anxious to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate for this convention as soon as possible. Congressional action is also needed on several other international conventions and amendments to control oil pollution from ships in the oceans.

Managing The Land

As we steadily bring our pollution problems under control, more effective and sensible use of our land is rapidly emerging as among the highest of our priorities. The land is our Nations' basic natural resource, and our stewardship of this resource today will affect generations to come.

America's land once seemed inexhaustible. There was always more of it beyond the horizon. Until the twentieth century we displayed a carelessness about our land, born of our youthful innocence and desire to expand. But our land is no longer an open frontier.

Americans not only need, but also very much want to preserve diverse and beautiful landscapes, to maintain essential farm lands, to save wetlands and wildlife habitats, to keep open recreational space near crowded population centers, and to protect our shorelines and beaches. Our goal is to harmonize development with environmental quality and to add creatively to the beauty and long-term worth of land already being used.

Land use policy is a basic responsibility of State and local governments. They are closer to the problems and closer to the people. Some localities are already reforming land use regulation—a trend I hope will accelerate. But because land is a national heritage, the Federal Government must exercise leadership in land use decision processes, and I am today again proposing that we provide it. In the coming weeks, I will ask the Congress to enact a number of legislative initiatives which will help us achieve this goal:

National Land Use PolicyOur greatest need is for comprehensive new legislation to stimulate State land use controls. We especially need a National Land Use Policy Act authorizing Federal assistance to encourage the States, in cooperation with local governments, to protect lands of critical environmental concern and to regulate the siting of key facilities such as airports, highways and major private developments. Appropriate Federal funds should be withheld from States that fail to act.

Powerplant SitingAn open, long-range planning process is needed to help meet our power needs while also protecting the environment. We can avoid unnecessary delays with a powerplant siting law which assures that electric power facilities are constructed on a timely basis, but with early and thorough review of long-range plans and specific provisions to protect the environment.

Protection of WetlandsOur coastal wetlands are increasingly threatened by residential and commercial development. To increase their protection, I believe we should use the Federal tax laws to discourage unwise development in wetlands.

Historic Preservation and RehabilitationAn important part of our national heritage are those historic structures in our urban areas which should be rehabilitated and preserved, not demolished. To help meet this goal, our tax laws should be revised to encourage rehabilitation of older buildings, and we should provide Federal insurance of loans to restore historic buildings for residential purposes.

Management of Public LandsApproximately one-fifth of the Nation's land is considered “public domain,” and lacks the protection of an overall management policy with environmental safeguards. Legislation is required to enable the Secretary of the Interior to protect our environmental interest on those lands.

Legacy of ParksUnder the Legacy of Parks program which I initiated in 1971, 257 separate parcels of parklands and underused Federal lands in all 50 States have been turned over to local control for park and recreational purposes. Most of these parcels are near congested urban areas, so that millions of citizens can now have easy access to parklands. I am pleased to announce today that 16 more parcels of Federal land will soon be made available under this same program.

Mining on Public LandsUnder a statute now over a century old, public lands must be transferred to private ownership at the request of any person who discovers minerals on them. We thus have no effective control over mining on these properties. Because the public lands belong to all Americans, this 1872 Mining Act should be repealed and replaced with new legislation which I shall send to the Congress.

Mined Area ProtectionSurface and underground mining can too often cause serious air and water pollution as well as unnecessary destruction of wildlife habitats and aesthetic and recreational areas. New legislation with stringent performance standards is required to regulate abuses of surface and underground mining in a manner compatible with the environment.

American Agriculture

Nearly three-fifth of America's land is in the stewardship of the farmer and the rancher. We can be grateful that farmers have been among our best conservationists over the years. Farmers know better than most that sound conservation means better long-term production and improved land values. More importantly, no one respects and understands our soil and land better than those who make their living by the land.

But Americans know their farmers and ranchers best for all they have done to keep us the best-fed and best-clothed people in the history of mankind. A forward-looking agricultural economy is not only essential for environmental progress, but also to provide for our burgeoning food and fiber needs.

My administration is not going to express its goal for farmers in confusing terms. Our goal, instead, is very simple. The farmer wants, has earned, and deserves more freedom to make his own decisions. The Nation wants and needs expanded supplies of reasonably priced goods and commodities.

These goals are complementary. Both have been advanced by the basic philosophy of the Agricultural Act of 1970. They must be further advanced by Congressional action this year.

The Agricultural Act of 1970 expires with the 1973 crop. We now face the fundamental challenge of developing legislation appropriate to the economy of the 1970's. Over the next several months, the future direction of the farm program must be discussed, debated and written into law. The outcome of this process will be crucial not only to farmers and ranchers, but to consumers and taxpayers as well.

My Administration's fundamental approach to farm policy is to build on the forward course set by the 1970 Act. These principles should guide us in enacting new farm legislation:

• Farmers must be provided with greater freedom to make production and marketing decisions. I have never known anyone in Washington who knows better than a farmer what is in his own interest.

• Government influence in the farm commodity marketplace must be reduced. Old fashioned Federal intrusion is an inappropriate to today's farm economy as the old McCormick reaper would be on a highly sophisticated modern farm.

• We must allow farmers the opportunity to produce for expanding domestic demands and to continue our vigorous competition in export markets. We will not accomplish that goal by telling the farmer how much he can grow or the rancher how much livestock he can raise. Fidelity to this principle will have the welcome effect of encouraging both fair food prices for consumers and growing income from the marketplace for farmers.

• We must reduce the farmer's dependence on Government payments through increased returns from sales of farm products at home and abroad. Because some of our current methods of handling farm problems are outmoded, the farmer has been unfairly saddled with the unflattering image of drinking primarily at the Federal well. Let us remember that more than 93 percent of gross farm income comes directly through the marketplace. Farmers and ranchers are strong and independent businessmen; we should expand their opportunity to exercise their strength and independence.

• Finally, we need a program that will put the United States in a good posture for forthcoming trade negotiations.

In pursuing all of these goals, we will work closely through the Secretary of Agriculture with the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture to formulate ane enact new legislation in areas where it is needed.

I believe, for example, that dairy support systems, wheat, feed grains and cotton allotments and bases—some established decades ago—are drastically outdated. They tend to be discriminatory for many farm operators.

It would be desirable to establish, after a reasonable transition period, a more equitable basis for production adjustment in the agricultural economy should such adjustment be needed in the years ahead. Direct Federal payments should, at the end of the transition period, be limited to the amounts necessary to compensate farmers for withholding unneeded land from crop production.

As new farm legislation is debated in the months ahead, I hope the Congress will address this important subject with a deep appreciation of the need to keep the Government off the farm as well as keeping the farmer on.

Protecting Our Natural Heritage

An important measure of our true commitment to environmental quality is our dedication to protecting the wilderness and its inhabitants. We must recognize their ecological significance and preserve them as sources of inspiration and education. And we need them as places of quiet refuge and reflection.

Important progress has been made in recent years, but still further action is needed in the Congress. Specifically, I will ask the 93rd Congress to direct its attention to the following areas of concern:

Endangered SpeciesThe limited scope of existing laws requires new authority to identify and protect endangered species before they are so depleted that it is too late. New legislation must also make the taking of an endangered animal a Federal offense.

Predator ControlThe widespread use of highly toxic poisons to kill coyotes and other predatory animals has spread persistent poisons to range and forest lands without adequate foresight of environmental effects. I believe Federal assistance is now required so that we can find better means of controlling predators without endangering other wildlife.

Wilderness AreasHistorically, Americans have always looked westward to enjoy wilderness areas. Today we realize that we must also preserve the remaining areas of wilderness in the East, if the majority of our people are to have the full benefit of our natural glories. Therefore I will ask the Congress to amend the legislation that established the Wilderness Preservation System so that more of our Eastern lands can be included.

Wild and Scenic RiversNew legislation is also needed to continue our expansion of the national system of wild and scenic rivers. Funding authorization must be increased by $20 million to complete acquisitions in seven areas, and we must extend the moratorium on Federal licensing for water resource projects on those rivers being considered for inclusion in the system.

Big Cypress National Fresh Water PreserveIt is our great hope that we can create a reserve of Florida's Big Cypress Swamp in order to protect the outstanding wildlife in that area, preserve the water supply of Everglades National Park and provide the Nation with an outstanding recreation area. Prompt passage of Federal legislation would allow the Interior Department to forestall private or commercial development and inflationary pressures that will build if we delay.

Protecting Marine FisheriesCurrent regulation of fisheries off U.S. coasts is inadequate to conserve and manage these resources. Legislation is needed to authorize U.S. regulation of foreign fishing off U.S. coasts to the fullest extent authorized by international agreements. In addition, domestic fishing should be regulated in the U.S. fisheries zone and in the high seas beyond that zone.

World Heritage TrustThe United States has endorsed an international convention for a World Heritage Trust embodying our proposals to accord special recognition and protection to areas of the world which are of such unique natural, historical, or cultural value that they are a part of the heritage of all mankind. I am hopeful that this convention will be ratified early in 1973.

Weather ModificationOur capacity to affect the weather has grown considerably in sophistication and predictability, but with this advancement has also come a new potential for endangering lives and property and causing adverse environmental effects. With additional Federal regulations, I believe that we can minimize these dangers.

Meeting Our Energy Needs

One of the highest priorities of my Administration during the coming year will be a concern for energy supplies—a concern underscored this winter by occasional fuel shortages. We must face up to a stark fact in America: we are now consuming more energy than we produce.

A year and a half ago I sent to the Congress the first Presidential message ever devoted to the energy question. I shall soon submit a new and far more comprehensive energy message containing wide-ranging initiatives to ensure necessary supplies of energy at acceptable economic and environmental costs. In the meantime, to help meet immediate needs, I have temporarily suspended import quotas on home heating oil east of the Rocky Mountains.

As we work to expand our supplies of energy, we should also recognize that we must balance those efforts with our concern to preserve our environment. In the past, as we have sought new energy sources, we have too often damaged or despoiled our land. Actions to avoid such damage will probably aggravate our energy problems to some extent and may lead to higher prices. But all development and use of energy sources carries environmental risks, and we must find ways to minimize those risks while providing adequate supplies of energy. I am fully confident that we can satisfy both of these imperatives.

Going Forward In Confidence

The environmental awakening of recent years has triggered substantial progress in the fight to preserve and renew the great legacies of nature. Unfortunately, it has also triggered a certain tendency to despair. Some people have moved from complacency to the opposite extreme of alarmism, suggesting that our pollution problems were hopeless and predicting impending ecological disaster. Some have suggested that we could never reconcile environmental protection with continued economic growth.

I reject this doomsday mentality—and I hope the Congress will also reject it. I believe that we can meet our environmental challenges without turning our back on progress. What we must do is to stop the hand-wringing, roll up our sleeves and get on with the job.

The advocates of defeatism warn us of all that is wrong. But I believe they underestimate this Nation's genius for responsive adaptability and its enormous reservoir of spirit.

I believe there is always a sensible middle ground between the Cassandras and the Pollyannas. We must take our stand upon that ground.

I have profound respect for the enormous challenge ahead, but I have even stronger respect for the capacity and character of the American people. Many of us have heard the adage that the last letters of the word, “American,” say “I can.” I am confident that we can, and we will, meet our national resource challenges.

RICHARDNIXONThe White House

February 15, 1973

III. THE ECONOMY

Following is the text, as made available by the White House, of President Nixon's Feb. 22, 1973, State of the Union message on economic affairs.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Today, in this third section of my 1973 State of the Union Message, I wish to report on the state of our economy and to urge the Congress to join with me in building the foundations for a new era of prosperity in the United States.

The state of our Union depends fundamentally on the state of our economy. I am pleased to report that our economic prospects are very bright. For the first time in nearly 20 years, we can look forward to a period of genuine prosperity in a time of peace. We can, in fact, achieve the most bountiful prosperity that this Nation has ever known.

That goal can only be attained, however, if we discipline ourselves and unite on certain basic policies:

• We must be restrained in Federal spending.

• We must show reasonableness in labor-management relations.

• We must comply fully with the new Phase III requirements of our economic stabilization program.

• We must continue our battle to hold down the price of food.

• And we must vigorously meet the challenge of foreign trading competition.

It is clear to me that the American people stand firmly together in support of these policies. Their President stands with them. And as Members of the 93rd Congress consider the alternatives before us this year, I am confident that they, too, will join in this great endeavor.

Impact of the Economy

This message will present my basic economic recommendations and priorities and will indicate some areas in which further detailed plans will be submitted later.

But I also want to discuss our economic situation in less formal terms: how do statistical measurements, comparisons and projections affect the daily lives of individual Americans and their families?

We build our economy, after all, not to create cold, impersonal statistics for the record books but to better the lives of our people.

Basically, the economy affects people in three ways.

First, it affects their jobs—how plentiful they are, how secure they are, how good they are.

Second, it affects what people are paid on their jobs—and how much they can buy with that income.

Finally, it affects how much people have to pay back to the Government in taxes.

Job Picture Encouraging

To begin with, the job picture today is very encouraging.

The number of people at work in this country rose by 2.3 million during 1972—the largest increase in 25 years. Unemployment fell from the 6 percent level in 1971 to 5 percent last month.

The reason jobs have grown so rapidly is that the economy grew in real terms by 6½ percent last year, one of the best performances in the past quarter century. Our economic advisers expect a growth rate of nearly 7 percent in 1973. That would bring unemployment down to around the 4½ percent level by the end of the year.

Five percent unemployment is too high. Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine that 5 percent figure more closely.

For example:

• Only 40 percent of those now counted as unemployed are in that status because they lost their last job. The rate of layoffs at the end of last year was lower than it has been since the Korean War.

• The other 60 percent either left their last job voluntarily, are seeking jobs for the first time or are reentering the labor force after being out of it for a period of time.

• About 45 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed for less than five weeks.

• As compared with earlier periods when the overall unemployment rate was about what it is now, the unemployment rate is significantly lower for adult males, household heads and married men. Among married men it is only 2.4 percent. Unemployment among these groups should decline even further during 1973.

This employment gain is even more remarkable since so many more people have been seeking jobs than usual. For example, nearly three million Americans have been released from defense-related jobs since 1969—including over one million veterans.

The unemployment rate for veterans of the Vietnam War now stands at 5.9 percent, above the general rate of unemployment but slightly below the rate for other males in the 20-to-29-year-old age bracket. While much better than the 8.5 percent of a year ago, this 5.9 percent rate is still too high. The employment problems of veterans, who have given so much for their country, will remain high on my list of concerns for the coming year.

Women and young people have also been seeking work in record numbers. Yet, as in the case of veterans, jobs for these groups have been increasing even faster. Unemployment among women and young people has thus declined—but it is also much too high and constitutes a great waste for our Nation.

As we move into a new era of peacetime prosperity, our economic system is going to have room—indeed, is going to have need—for nearly every available hand.

The role of women in our economy thus is bound to grow. And it should—not only because the expansion of opportunity for women is right, but also because America will not be able to achieve its full economic potential unless every woman who wants to work can find a job that provides fair compensation and equal opportunity for advancement.

This Administration is committed to the promotion of this goal. We support the Equal Rights Amendment. We have opened the doors of employment to qualified women in the Federal Service. We have called for similar efforts in businesses and institutions which receive Federal contracts or assistance.

Just last year, we established the Advisory Committee on the Economic Role of Women. This Committee will provide leadership in helping to identify economic problems facing women and helping to change the attitudes which create unjust and illogical barriers to their employment.

Pay and Purchasing Power

The second great question is what people are paid on their jobs and how much it will buy for them.

Here the news is also good. Not only are more people working, but they are getting more for their work. Average per capita income rose by 7.7 percent during 1972, well above the average gain during the previous ten years.

The most important thing, however, is that these gains were not wiped out by rising prices—as they often were in the 1960's. The Federal Government spent too much, too fast in that period and the result was runaway inflation.

While wages may have climbed very rapidly during those years, purchasing power did not. Instead, purchasing power stalled, or even moved backward. Inflation created an economic treadmill that sometimes required a person to achieve a 6 percent salary increase every year just to stay even.

Now that has changed. The inflation rate last year was cut nearly in half from what it was four years ago. The purchasing power of the average worker's take-home pay rose more last year than in any year since 1955; it went up by 4.3 percent—the equivalent of two extra weekly paychecks.

We expect inflation to be reduced even further in 1973—for several reasons.

A fundamental reason is the Nation's growing opposition to runaway Federal spending. The public increasingly perceives what such spending does to prices and taxes. As a result, we have a good chance now, the best in years, to curb the growth of the Federal [Page 1131] budget. That will do more than anything else to protect the family budget.

Other forces are working for us too.

Productivity increased sharply last year—which means the average worker is producing more and can therefore earn more without driving prices higher. In addition, the fact that real spendable earnings rose so substantially last year will encourage reasonable wage demands this year. Workers will not have to catch up from an earlier slump in earnings.

Finally, we now have a new system of wage and price controls—one that is the right kind of system for 1973.

Controls in Force

Any idea that controls have virtually been ended is totally wrong. We still have firm controls. We are still enforcing them firmly. All that has changed is our method of enforcing them.

The old system depended on a Washington bureaucracy to approve major wage and price increases in advance. Although it was effective while it lasted, this system was beginning to produce inequities and to get tangled in red tape. The new system will avoid these dangers. Like most of our laws, it relies largely on self-administration, on the voluntary cooperation of the American people.

But if some people should fail to cooperate, we still have the will and the means to crack down on them.

To any economic interests which might feel that the new system will permit them, openly or covertly, to achieve gains beyond the safety limits we shall prescribe, let me deliver this message in clear and unmistakable terms:

We will regard any flouting of our anti-inflationary rules and standards as nothing less than attempted economic arson threatening our national economic stability—and we shall act accordingly.

We would like Phase III to be as voluntary as possible. But we will make it as mandatory as necessary.

Our new system of controls has broad support from business and labor—the keystone for any successful program. It will prepare us for the day when we no longer need controls. It will allow us to concentrate on those areas where inflation has been most troublesome—construction, health care and especially food prices.

We are focusing particular attention and action on the tough problem of food prices. These prices have risen sharply at the wholesale level in recent months, so that figures for retail prices in January and February will inevitably show sharp increases. In fact, we will probably see increases in food prices for some months to come.

The underlying cause of this problem is that food supplies have not risen fast enough to keep up with the rapidly rising demand.

But we must not accept rising food prices as a permanent feature of American life. We must halt this inflationary spiral by attacking the causes of rising food prices on all fronts. Our first priority must be to increase supplies of food to meet the increasing demand.

We are moving vigorously to expand our food supplies:

• We are encouraging farmers to put more acreage into production of both crops and livestock.

• We are allowing more meat and dried milk to come in from abroad.

• We have ended subsidies for agricultural exports.

• And we are reducing the Government's agricultural stockpiles and encouraging farmers to sell the stock they own.

Measures such as these will stop the rise of wholesale food prices and will slow the rise of retail food prices. Unfortunately, nothing we can do will have a decisive effect in the next few months. But the steps I have taken will have a powerful effect in the second half of the year.

These steps will also help our farmers to improve their incomes by producing more without corresponding price increases. We anticipate that farm prices will be no higher at the end of this year than they were at the beginning.

For all of these reasons, we have a good chance to reduce the overall inflation rate to 2½ percent by the end of 1973.

Holding the Line on Taxes

The third important economic question concerns how much money people pay out in taxes and how much they have left to control themselves. Here, too, the picture is promising.

Since 1950, the share of the average family's income taken for taxes in the United States has nearly doubled—to more than 20 percent. The average person worked less than one hour out of each eight-hour day to pay his taxes in 1950; today he works nearly two hours each day for the tax collector.

In fact, if tax cut proposals had not been adopted during our first term, the average worker's pay increase last year would have been wiped out completely by increased taxes and the taxpayers would have to pay out an additional $25 billion in personal income taxes this year.

The only way to hold the line on taxes is to hold the line on Federal spending.

This is why we are cutting back, eliminating or reforming Federal programs that waste the taxpayers money.

My Administration has now had four years of experience with all of our Federal programs. We have conducted detailed studies comparing their costs and results. On the basis of that experience, I am convinced that the cost of many Federal programs can no longer be justified. Among them are:

• housing programs that benefit the well-to-do but short-change the poor;

• health programs that build more hospitals when hospital beds are now in surplus;

• educational fellowships designed to attract more people into teaching when tens of thousands of teachers already cannot find teaching jobs;

• programs that subsidize education for the children of Federal employees who already pay enough local taxes to support their local schools;

• programs that blindly continue welfare payments to those who are ineligible or overpaid.

Such programs may have appealing names; they may sound like good causes. But behind a fancy label can lie a dismal failure. And unless we cut back now on the programs that have failed, we will soon run out of money for the programs that succeed.

It has been charged that our budget cuts show a lack of compassion for the disadvantaged. The best answer to this charge is to look at the facts. We are budgeting 66 percent more to help the poor next year than was the case four years ago; 67 percent more to help the sick; 71 percent more to help older Americans and 242 percent more to help the hungry and malnourished. Altogether, our human resources budget is a record $125 billion—nearly double that of four years ago when I came into office.

We have already shifted our spending priorities from defense programs to human resource programs. Now we must also switch our spending priorities from programs which give us a bad return on the dollar to programs that pay off. That is how to show we truly care about the needy.

The question is not whether we help but how we help. By eliminating programs that are wasteful, we can concentrate on programs that work.

Our recent round of budget cuts can save $11 billion in this fiscal year, $19 billion next fiscal year, and $24 billion the year after. That means an average saving of $700 over the next three years for each of America's 75 million taxpayers.

Without the savings I have achieved through program reductions and reforms, those spending totals respectively would be $261 billion, $288 billion and $312 billion—figures which would spell either higher taxes, a new surge of crippling inflation, or both.

To hold the line on Federal spending, it is absolutely vital that we have the full cooperation of the Congress. I urge the Congress, as one of its most pressing responsibilities, to adopt an overall spending ceiling for each fiscal year. I also ask that it establish a regular procedure for ensuring that the ceiling is maintained.

The International Challenge

In recent years, the attention of Americans has increasingly turned to the serious questions confronting us in international trade and in the monetary arena.

This is no longer the era in which the United States, preeminent in science, marketing and services, can dominate world markets with the advanced products of our technology and our advanced means of production.

This is no longer the era in which the United States can automatically sell more abroad than we purchase from foreign countries.

We face new challenges in international competition and are thus in a period of substantial adjustment in our relations with our trading partners.

One consequence of these developments was the step we took last week to change the relative value of the dollar in trading abroad.

We took this step because of a serious trade imbalance which could threaten the mounting prosperity of our people. America has been buying more from other countries than they have been buying from us. And just as a family or a company cannot go on indefinitely buying more than it sells, neither can a country.

Changing the exchange rates will help us change this picture. It means our exports will be priced more competitively in the international marketplace and should therefore sell better. Our imports, on the other hand, will not grow as fast.

But this step must now be followed by reforms which are more basic.

First, we need a more flexible international monetary system, one that will lead to balance without crisis. The United States set forth fundamental proposals for such a system last September. It is time for other nations to join us in getting action on these proposals.

Secondly, American products must get a fairer shake in a more open world trading system—so that we can extend American markets and expand American jobs. If other countries make it harder for our products to be sold abroad, then our trade imbalance can only grow worse.

Responsibility of the Congress

America is assuredly on the road to a new era of prosperity. The roadsigns are clear, and we are gathering more momentum with each passing month. But we can easily lose our way unless the Congress is on board, helping to steer the course.

As we face 1973, in fact, we may be sure that the state of our economy in the future will very much depend upon the decisions made this year on Capitol Hill.

Over the course of the next few months, I will urge prompt Congressional action on a variety of economic proposals. Together, these proposals will constitute one of the most important packages of economic initiatives ever considered by any Congress in our history. I hope—as do all of our people—that the Congress will act with both discipline and dispatch.

Among the items included in my 1973 economic package are:

Extension of the Economic Stabilization ProgramPresent authority will soon expire, and I have asked the Congress to extend the law for one year to April 30, 1974. I hope this will be done without adding general mandatory standards or prescribing rigid advance decisions—steps that would only hamper sound administration of the program. A highly complex economy simply cannot be regulated effectively for extended periods in that way.

Tax ProgramI shall recommend a tax program that builds further reforms on those we achieved in 1969 and 1971.

Property Tax ReliefI shall also submit recommendations for alleviating the crushing burdens which property taxes now create for older Americans.

Tax Credit for Nonpublic SchoolsI shall propose legislation which would provide for income tax credit for tuition paid to nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. These institutions are a valuable national resource, relieving the public school system of enrollment pressures, injecting a welcome variety into our educational process, and expanding the options of millions of parents.

Trade LegislationAnother item high on our agenda will be new trade proposals which I will soon send to the Congress. They would make it easier for us not only to lower our trade barriers when other countries lower theirs but also to raise our barriers when that is necessary to keep things fair.

Other ReformsTo modernize and make them more equitable and beneficial, I shall also later submit recommendations for improving the performance of our private pension system, our unemployment compensation program, our minimum wage laws and the manner in which we deal with our transportation systems.

Spending LimitsFinally, but most importantly, I ask the Congress to act this year to impose strict limits on Federal spending.

The cuts I have suggested in this year's budget did not come easily. Thus I can well understand that it may not be easy for the Congress to sustain them, as every special interest group lobbies with its own special Congressional committees for its own special legislation. But the Congress should serve more than the special interest; its first allegiance must always be to the public interest.

We must also recognize that no one in the Congress is now charged with adding all of our Federal expenditures together—and considering their total impact on taxes and prices. It is as if each member of a family went shopping on his own, without knowing how much money was available in the overall family budget or how much other members of the family were spending or charging on various credit accounts.

To overcome these problems, I urge prompt adoption by the Congress of an overall spending ceiling for each fiscal year. This action would allow the Congress to work jointly with me in holding spending to $250 billion in the current fiscal year, $269 billion next year, and $288 billion in fiscal year 1975. Beyond the adoption of an annual ceiling, I also recommend that the Congress consider internal reforms which would establish a regular mechanism for deciding how to maintain the ceiling.

I have no economic recommendation to make to the Congress which is more important to the economic well-being of our people.

I believe that most members of the House and Senate want to hold down spending. Most Congressmen voted for a spending ceiling in principle when the Senate and House approved a ceiling last fall. Unfortunately the two bodies could not get together on a final version. I believe they must get together soon—so that the Congress can proceed this year with a firm sense of budget discipline.

The stakes are high. If we do not restrain spending and if my recommended cuts are reversed, it would take a 15 percent increase in income taxes to pay for the additional expenditures.

The separation of powers between the President and the Congress has become a favorite topic of discussion in recent weeks. We should never, of course, lose our sharp concern for maintaining Constitutional balances.

But we should never overlook the fact we have joint responsibilities as well as separate powers.

There are many areas in which the President and the Congress should and must work together in behalf of all the people—and the level of spending, since it directly affects the pocketbooks of every family in the land, is one of the most critical.

I have fulfilled my pledge that I would not recommend any programs that would require a general tax increase or would create inflationary pressures.

Now it is up to the Congress to match these efforts with a spending ceiling of its own.

Making a Choice

We stand on the threshold of a new era of prolonged and growing prosperity for the United States.

Unlike past booms, this new prosperity will not depend on the stimulus of war.

It will not be eaten away by the blight of inflation.

It will be solid; it will be steady; and it will be sustainable.

If we act responsibly, this new prosperity can be ours for many [Page 1133] years to come. If we don't, then, as Franklin Roosevelt once warned, we could be “wrecked on (the) rocks of loose fiscal policy.”

The choice is ours. Let us choose responsible prosperity.

RICHARDNIXON

IV. HUMAN RESOURCES

Following is the White House text of the March 1, 1973, State of the Union message on human resources:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

“Information of the State of the Union,” which our Constitution directs shall be communicated from time to time to the Congress by the President, must consist above all of information about the well-being of the American people.

As the opening words of the Constitution proclaim, America began with “We the People.” The people are the Union, and its condition depends wholly on theirs.

While the Nation's land and resources, its communities, its economy, and its political institutions are also vital concerns to be addressed in my reports to the Congress this year, all of these in the final analysis are no more than means to a greater end. For each of them must ultimately be measured according to a single standard: what will serve the millions of individual Americans for whom all public officials serve as trustees.

Too often in the past that standard has not prevailed. Too often public policy decisions have been founded not on the long-run interests of all the people, but on the short-run interests of special groups of people. Programs once set in motion tend to stay in motion—sometimes long after their useful life has ended. They acquire a constituency of their own, even within the Government, and they cannot easily be reformed or stopped. Means come to be regarded as ends in themselves. And no one suffers more than the people they were designed to serve.

Despite all of the factors which conspire to hinder both the executive and the legislative branches in being as objective and analytical as we should be about the soundness of activities that continue from year to year supposedly in the public interest, we can and must discipline ourselves to take a larger view.

As we consider the subject of human resources in this fourth section of my 1973 State of the Union Message, we must not confine ourselves solely to a discussion of the year past and the year ahead. Nor can we be content to frame the choices we face in strictly governmental and programmatic terms—as though Federal money and programs were the only variables that mattered in meeting human needs.

The American Dream

I am irrevocably committed, as Presidents before me have been and as I know each Member of the Congress is, to fulfilling the American dream for all Americans.

But I also believe deeply that in seeking progress and reform we must neither underestimate our society's present greatness, nor mistake the sources of that greatness. To do so would be to run a serious risk of damaging, with unproven panaceas applied in excessive haste and zeal, the very institutions we seek to improve.

Let us begin then, by recognizing that by almost any measure, life is better for Americans in 1973 than ever before in our history, and better than in any other society of the world in this or any earlier age.

No previous generation of our people has ever enjoyed higher incomes, better health and nutrition, longer life-expectancy, or greater mobility and convenience in their lives than we enjoy today. None before us have had a better chance for fulfilment and advancement in their work, more leisure time and recreational opportunities, more widespread access to culture and the arts, or a higher level of education and awareness of the world around them. None have had greater access to and control over the natural and human forces that shape their lives, or better protection against suffering, inhumanity, injustice, and discrimination. And none have enjoyed greater freedom.

Secondly, let us recognize that the American system which has brought us so far so fast is not simply a system of Government helping people. Rather it is a system under which Government helps people to help themselves and one another.

The real miracles in raising millions out of poverty, for example, have been performed by the free-enterprise economy, not by Government anti-poverty programs. The integration of one disadvantaged minority after another into the American mainstream has been accomplished by the inherent responsiveness of our political and social system, not by quotas and coercion. The dramatic gains in health and medical care have come primarily through private medicine, not from federally-operated systems.

Even where the public sector has played a major role, as in education, the great strength of the system has derived from State and local governments' primacy and from the diverse mixture of private and public institutions in the educational process—both factors which have facilitated grassroots influence and popular participation.

We should not tamper lightly, then, with the delicately balanced social, economic, and political system which has been responsible for making this country the best place on earth to live—and which has tremendous potential to rectify whatever shortcomings may still persist.

But we Americans—to our great credit—are a restless and impatient people, a nation of idealists. We dream not simply of alleviating poverty, hunger, discrimination, ignorance, disease, and fear, but of eradicating them altogether—and we would like to do it all today.

During the middle and late 1960's, under the pressure of this impatient idealism, Federal intervention to help meet human needs increased sharply. Provision of services from Federal programs directly to individuals began to be regarded as the rule in human resources policy, rather than the rare exception it had been in the past.

The Government in those years undertook sweeping, sometimes almost utopian, commitments in one area of social concern after another. The State and local governments and the private sector were elbowed aside with little regard for the dislocations that might result. Literally hundreds of new programs were established on the assumption that even the most complex problems could be quickly solved by throwing enough Federal dollars at them.

Well-intentioned as this effort may have been, the results in case after case amounted to dismal failure. It was a classic case of elevating means to the status of ends in themselves. Hard evidence of actual betterment in people's lives was seldom demanded. Everlarger amounts of funds, new agencies, and increased staff were treated as proof enough of success, simply because the motive was compassionate.

The American people deserve better than this. They deserve compassion that works—not simply compassion that means well. They deserve programs that say yes to human needs by saying no to paternalism, social exploitation and waste.

Protecting and enhancing the greatness of our society is a great goal. It is doubly important, therefore, that we not permit the worthiness of our objective to render us uncritical or careless in the means we select for attaining that objective.

It will increase our greatness as a society, for example, to establish the principle that no American family should be denied good health care because of inability to pay. But it will diminish our greatness if we deprive families of the freedom to make their own health care arrangements without bureaucratic meddling.

It will increase our greatness to ensure that no boy or girl is denied a quality education. But it will diminish our greatness if we force hundreds of thousands of children to ride buses miles away from their neighborhood schools in order to achieve an arbitrary racial balance.

It will increase our greatness to establish an income security system under which no American family will have to suffer for lack [Page 1134] of income or break up because welfare regulations encourage it. But it would erode the very foundations of our stability and our prosperity if we ever made it more comfortable or more profitable to live on a welfare check than on a paycheck.

Principles for the 1970's

Consistently since 1969, this Administration has worked to establish a new human resources policy, based on a healthy skepticism about Federal Government omniscience and omnicompetence, and on a strong reaffirmation of the right and the capacity of individuals to chart their own lives and solve their own problems through State and local government and private endeavor. We have achieved a wide variety of significant reforms.

Now the progress made and the experience gained over the past four years, together with the results of careful program reviews which were conducted over this period, have prepared us to seek broader reforms in 1973 than any we have requested before.

In the time since the outlines of these proposals emerged in the new budget, intense controversy and considerable misunderstanding about both their purposes and their effects have understandably arisen among persons of goodwill on all sides.

To provide a more rational, less emotional basis for the national debate which will—and properly should—surround my recommendations, I would invite the Congress to consider four basic principles which I believe should govern our human resources policy in the 1970's:

• Government at all levels should seek to support and nurture, rather than limit, the diversity and freedom of choice which is the hallmark of the American system. The Federal Government in particular must work to guarantee an equal chance at the starting line by removing barriers which might impede an individual's opportunity to realize his or her full potential.

• The Federal Government should concentrate more on providing incentives and opening opportunities, and less on delivering direct services. Such programs of direct assistance to individuals as the Federal Government does conduct must provide evenhanded treatment for all, and must be carefully designed to ensure that the benefits are actually received by those who are intended to receive them.

• Rather than stifling initiative by trying to direct everything from Washington, Federal efforts should encourage State and local governments to make those decisions and supply those services for which their closeness to the people best qualifies them. In addition, the Federal Government should seek means of encouraging the private sector to address social problems, thereby utilizing the market mechanism to marshal resources behind clearly stated national objectives.

• Finally, all Federal policy must adhere to a strict standard of fiscal responsibility. Ballooning deficits which spent our economy into a new inflationary spiral or a recessionary tailspin in the name of social welfare would punish most cruelly the very people whom they seek to help. On the other hand, continued additions to a personal tax burden which has already doubled since 1950 would reduce incentives for excellence and would conflict directly with the goal of allowing each individual to keep as much as possible of what he or she earns so as to permit maximum personal freedom of choice.

The new post of Counsellor to the President for Human Resources, which I have recently created within the Executive Office of the President, will provide a much-needed focal point for our efforts to see that these principles are carried out in all Federal activities aimed at meeting human needs, as well as in the Federal Government's complex relationships with State and local governments in this field. The coordinating function to be performed by this Counsellor should materially increase the unity, coherence, and effectiveness of our policies.

The following sections present a review of the progress we have made over the past four years in bringing each of the various human resources activities into line with these principles, and they outline our agenda for the years ahead.

Health

I am committed to removing financial barriers that would limit access to quality medical care for all American families. To that end, we have nearly doubled Federal outlays for health since the beginning of this Administration. Next year, they will exceed $30 billion.

Nearly 60 percent of these funds will go to finance health care for older Americans, the disabled, and the poor, through Medicare and Medicaid.

But we have taken significant steps to meet other priority needs as well. In the last four years, funding for cancer and heart and lung disease research has more than doubled; it will amount to more than three-quarters of a billion dollars in 1974.

We have supported reform of the health care delivery system and have proposed legislation to assist in the development of health maintenance organizations on a demonstration basis. We have increased funds for programs which help prevent illness, such as those which help carry out our pure food and drug laws and those which promote consumer safety.

We have declared total war on the epidemic problem of drug abuse—and we are winning that war. We have come a long way toward our goal of creating sufficient treatment services so that any addict desiring treatment can obtain it. We are also making substantial investments in research to develop innovative treatment approaches to drug abuse. I will report in greater detail on our antidrug effort in a later section of this year's State of the Union message.

Strong measures have been taken to ensure that health care costs do not contribute to inflation and price people out of the care they need. The rate of increase in physicians' fees was cut by two-thirds last year alone, and hospital price rises have also been slowed. To build on these gains, controls on the health services industry have been retained and will be strengthened under Phase III of the Economic Stabilization Program.

A major goal of this Administration has been to develop an insurance system which can guarantee adequate financing of health care for every American family. The 92nd Congress failed to act upon my 1971 proposal to accomplish this goal, and now the need for legislation has grown still more pressing. I shall once again submit to the Congress legislation to help meet the Nation's health insurance needs.

Federal health policy should seek to safeguard this country's pluralistic health care system and to build on its strengths, minimizing reliance on Government-run arrangements. We must recognize appropriate limits to the Federal role, and we must see that every health care dollar is spent as effectively as possible.

This means discontinuing federally funded health programs which have served their purpose, or which have proved ineffective, or which involve functions more suitably performed by State and local government or the private sector.

The Hill-Burton hospital grants program, for example, can no longer be justified on the basis of the shortage of hospital facilities which prompted its creation in 1946. That shortage has given way to surplus—so that to continue this program would only add to the Nation's excess of hospital beds and lead to higher charges to patients. It should be terminated.

We are also proposing to phase out the community mental health center demonstration program while providing funding for commitments to existing arrangements extending up to eight years. This program has helped to build and establish some 500 such centers, which have demonstrated new ways to deliver mental health services at the community level.

Regional Medical Programs likewise can now be discontinued. The planning function they have performed can better be conducted by comprehensive State planning efforts. A second function of these programs, the continuing education of physicians who are already licensed, is an inappropriate burden for Federal taxpayers to bear.

Education

1973 must be a year of decisive action to restructure Federal aid programs for education. Our goal is to provide continued Federal financial support for our schools while expanding State and local control over basic educational decisions.

I shall again ask the Congress to establish a new program of Education Revenue Sharing. This program would replace the complex and inefficient tangle of approximately 30 separate programs for elementary and secondary education with a single flexible authority for use in a few broad areas such as compensatory education for the disadvantaged, education for the handicapped, vocational education, needed assistance in federally affected areas, and supporting services.

Education Revenue Sharing would enlarge the opportunities for State and local decision-makers to tailor programs and resources to meet the specific educational needs of their own localities. It would mean less red tape, less paper work, and greater freedom for those at the local level to do what they think is best for their schools—not what someone in Washington tells them is best.

It would help to strengthen the principle of diversity and freedom in education that is as old as America itself, and would give educators a chance to create fresher, more individual approaches to the educational challenges of the Seventies. At the same time, it would affirm and further the national interest in promoting equal educational opportunities for economically disadvantaged children.

If there is any one area of human activity where decisions are best made at the local level by the people who know local conditions and local needs, it is in the field of primary and secondary education. I urge the Congress to join me in making this year, the third in which Education Revenue Sharing has been on the legislative agenda, the year when this much-needed reform becomes law.

The time has also come to redefine the Federal role in higher education, by replacing categorical support programs for institutions with substantially increased funds for student assistance. My budget proposals have already outlined a plan to channel much more of our higher education support through students themselves, including a new grant program which would increase funds provided to $948 million and the number assisted to over 1,500,000 people—almost a five-fold increase over the current academic year.

These proposals would help to ensure for the first time that no qualified student seeking postsecondary education would be barred from attaining it by a lack of funds and they would at the same time reinforce the spirit of competition among institutions that has made American higher education strong. I urge their prompt enactment.

As we work to eliminate the unnecessary bureaucratic constraints currently hampering Federal education aid, we will also be devoting more attention to educational research and development through the new National Institute of Education. Funding for NIE will increase by almost 50 percent in fiscal year 1974, reaching $162 million.

Finally, in order to enhance the diversity provided by our mixed educational system of public and private schools, I will propose to the Congress legislation to provide a tax credit for tuition payments made by parents of children who attend nonpublic elementary and secondary schools.

Manpower

The Federal manpower program is a vital part of our total effort to conserve and develop our human resources.

Up to the present time, however, the “manpower program has been not a unified effort, but a collection of separate categorical activities, many of them overlapping. These activities now include such programs as Manpower Development and Training Act, Institutional Training programs, on-the-job training, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Public Service Careers, Operation Mainstream, and the Concentrated Employment Program. The net effect of several such programs operating in a single city seldom amounts to a coherent strategy for meeting the needs of people in that community.

While many well-run local programs are more than worth what they cost, many other individual projects are largely ineffective—and their failure wastes money which could be used to bolster the solid accomplishments of the rest.

Manpower programs ought to offer golden “second chances” for the less fortunate to acquire the skills and work habits which will help them become self-supporting, fully productive citizens. But as presently organized and managed, these second chance opportunities too often become just another dead-end exercise in frustration, rather than a genuine entree into a good job.

I believe that the answer to much of this problem lies in our program of Manpower Revenue Sharing—uniting several previously fragmented manpower activities under a single umbrella and then giving most of the responsibility for running this effort to those governments which are closest to the working men and women who need assistance. In the next 16 months, administrative measures will be taken to institute this needed reform of the manpower system within the present legal framework.

Manpower Revenue Sharing assistance will be freed from unnecessary Federal constraints, and aimed at developing jobs, equipping unemployed workers with useful work skills, and moving trainees into regular employment.

Welfare

With the failure of the past two Congresses to enact my proposals for fundamental reform of the Nation's public assistance system, that system remains as I described it in a message last year—“a crazy quilt of injustice and contradiction that has developed in bits and pieces over the years.”

The major existing program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), is as inequitable, inefficient, and inadequate as ever.

• The administration of this program is unacceptably loose. The latest national data indicate that in round numbers, one of every 20 persons on the AFDC rolls is totally ineligible for welfare; 3 more are paid more benefits than they are entitled to; and another is underpaid. About one-quarter of AFDC recipients, in other words, are receiving improper payments.

• Complex program requirements and administrative red tape at the Federal and State levels have created bureaucracies that are difficult to manage.

• Inconsistent and unclear definitions of need have diluted resources that should be targeted on those who need help most.

• Misguided incentives have discouraged employable persons from work and induced fathers to leave home so that their families can qualify for welfare.

After several years of skyrocketing increases, however, outlays for this program have begun to level off. This results from the strong resurgence of our economy and expansion of the job market, along with some management improvements in the AFDC program and strengthened work requirements which were introduced into the program last year.

Since the legislative outlook seems to preclude passage of an overall structural reform bill in the immediate future, I have directed that vigorous steps be taken to strengthen the management of AFDC through administrative measures and legislative proposals.

Under these reforms, Federal impediments to efficient State administration of the current AFDC system will be removed wherever possible. Changes will be proposed to reduce the complexities of current eligibility and payment processes. Work will continue to be required of all those who can reasonably be considered available for employment, while Federal funds to help welfare recipients acquire needed job skills will increase.

One thing is certain: the welfare mess cannot be permitted to continue. A system which penalizes a person for going to work and rewards a person for going on welfare is totally alien to the American tradition of self-reliance and self-respect. That is why welfare reform has been and will continue to be one of our major goals; and we will work diligently with the Congress in developing ways to achieve it.

Nutrition

During the past four years, Federal outlays for food assistance have increased more than three-fold. Food stamp and food distribution programs for needy families have been extended to virtually every community in the country. More than 15 million persons are now receiving food stamps or distributed foods, more than double the 1969 total. More than 8 million school children are now being provided with free or reduced-price lunches—up from only 3 million in 1969.

We have made great strides toward banishing hunger and malnutrition from American life—and we shall continue building on that progress until the job is done.

Older Americans

One measure of the Nation's devotion to our older citizens is the fact that programs benefitting them—including Social Security and a wide range of other activities—now account for nearly one-fourth of the entire Federal budget.

Social Security benefit levels have been increased 51 percent in the last four years—the most rapid increase in history. Under new legislation which I initially proposed, benefits have also become inflation-proof, increasing automatically as the cost of living increases.

Over 1½ million older Americans or their dependents can now receive higher Social Security benefits while continuing to work. Nearly 4 million widows and widowers are also starting to receive larger benefits—$1 billion in additional income in the next fiscal year. And millions of older Americans will be helped by the new Supplemental Security Income program which establishes a Federal income floor for the aging, blind, and disabled poor.

Nevertheless, we are confronted with a major item of unfinished business. Approximately two-thirds of the twenty million persons who are 65 and over own their own homes. A disproportionate amount of their fixed income must now be used for property taxes. I will submit to the Congress recommendations for alleviating the often crushing burdens which property taxes place upon many older Americans.

I also ask the cooperation of the Congress in passing my 1974 budget request for $200 million to fund the programs of the Administration on Aging—a funding level more than four times that appropriated for AoA programs in fiscal year 1972. Half of this amount will be devoted to nutrition projects for the elderly, with the remainder going to assist States and localities in developing comprehensive service programs for older Americans.

In 1973, we shall continue to carry out the commitment I made in 1971 at the White House Conference on Aging: to help make the last days of our older Americans their best days.

Economic Opportunity

No one who started life in a family at the bottom of the income scale, as I did and as many Members of the Congress did, can ever forget how that condition felt, or ever turn his back on an opportunity to help alleviate it in the lives of others.

We in the Federal Government have such an opportunity to help combat poverty. Our commitment to this fight has grown steadily during the past decade, without regard to which party happened to be in power, from under $8 billion in total Federal anti-poverty expenditures in 1964 to more than $30 billion in my proposed budget for 1974.

And we have moved steadily closer to the goal of a society in which all our citizens, regardless of economic status, will have both the resources and the opportunity to fully control their own destinies.

At the beginning of this period, when Government found itself unprepared to respond to the sharp new national awareness of the plight of the disadvantaged, creation of an institutional structure separate from the regular machinery of Government and specifically charged with helping the poor seemed a wise first step to take. Thus the Office of Economic Opportunity was brought into being in 1964.

A wide range of useful anti-poverty programs have been conceived and put into operation over the years by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Some programs which got their start within OEO have been moved out into the operating departments and agencies of the Government when they matured, and they are thriving there. VISTA, for example, became part of ACTION in 1971, and Head Start was integrated with other activities focused on the first five years of life under HEW's Office of Child Development. OEO's other programs have now developed to a point where they can be similarly integrated.

Accordingly, in keeping with my determination to make every dollar devoted to human resources programs return 100 cents worth of real benefits to the people who most need those benefits, I have decided that most of the anti-poverty activities now conducted by the Office of Economic Opportunity should be delegated or transferred into the Cabinet departments relating to their respective fields of activity. Adhering strictly to statutory procedures, and requesting Congressional approval whenever necessary, I shall take action to effect this change.

This reorganization will increase the efficiency of the various programs by grouping them with other functionally related Federal efforts and by minimizing the overhead costs which in the past have diverted too much money from human needs into staff payrolls and administrative expenses. Funding for the transferred activities will stay level, or in many cases will even increase.

The only major OEO program for which termination of Federal funding is recommended in my budget is Community Action. New funding for Community Action activities in fiscal year 1974 will be at the discretion of local communities.

After more than 7 years of existence, Community Action has had an adequate opportunity to demonstrate its value within the communities it serves, and to build locally based agencies. OEO has taken steps to help Community Action agencies put down local roots through a program of incentives and training, and has incorporated the basic community action concept—participation in programs by the people whom the programs seek to serve—into all Federal anti-poverty activities. Further Federal spending on behalf of this concept, beyond the $2.8 billion which has been spent on it since 1965, no longer seems necessary or desirable.

Legal Services

One other economic opportunity effort deserving special mention is the Legal Services Program. Notwithstanding some abuses, legal services has done much in its seven-year history to breathe new life into the cherished concept of equal justice for all by providing access to quality legal representation for millions of Americans who would otherwise have been denied it for want of funds.

The time has now come to institutionalize legal services as a permanent, responsible, and responsive component of the American system of justice.

I shall soon propose legislation to the Congress to form a legal services corporation constituted so as to permit its attorneys to practice according to the highest professional standards, provided with safeguards against politicization of its activities, and held accountable to the people through appropriate monitoring and evaluation procedures.

Civil Rights

Protecting the civil rights of every American is one of my firmest commitments as President. No citizen should be denied equal justice and equal opportunity in our society because of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

This Administration has steadily increased the Federal financial commitment in this field. Outlays for civil rights and equal opportunity in 1974 will pass $3 billion—3½ times what they were when we took office.

We have worked hard—and with good results—to end de jure school segregation, to promote equal job opportunity, to combat housing discrimination, to foster minority business enterprise, to uphold voting rights, to assist minority higher education, to meet [Page 1137] minority health problems like sickle cell anemia, and to make progress on many other fronts.

Now that equal opportunity is clearly written into the statute books, the next and in many ways more difficult step involves moving from abstract legal rights to concrete economic opportunities. We must ensure real social mobility—the freedom of all Americans to make their own choices and to go as far and as high as their abilities will take them. Legislation and court decisions play a major part in establishing that freedom. But community attitudes, government programs, and the vigor of the economic system all play large parts as well.

I believe that we have made progress, and we shall continue building on that progress in the coming year:

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will receive additional resources to carry out its expanded responsibilities.

• The Civil Service Commission will expand its monitoring of equal employment opportunities within the Federal Government.

• Efforts to assure that Federal contractors provide equal access to job opportunities will be expanded.

• The Small Business Administration will expand its loan program for minority business by nearly one-third.

• The Commission on Civil Rights will receive additional resources to carry out its newly granted responsibilities.

Additionally in the year ahead, we will continue to support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution so that American women—not a minority group but a majority of the whole population—need never again be denied equal opportunity.

The American Indian

For Indian people the policy of this Administration will continue to be one of advancing their opportunities for self-determination, without termination of the special Federal relationship with recognized Indian tribes.

Just as it is essential to put more decision-making in the hands of State and local governments, I continue to believe that Indian tribal governments should assume greater responsibility for programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which operate on their reservations.

As I first proposed in 1970, I recommend that the Congress enact the necessary legislation to facilitate this take-over of responsibility. Also, I recommend that the 1953 termination resolution be repealed. Meanwhile the new statutory provisions for Indian tribal governments under General Revenue Sharing will assist responsible tribal governments in allocating extra resources with greater flexibility.

I shall also propose new legislation to foster local Indian self-determination by developing an Interior Department program of bloc grants to Federally recognized tribes as a replacement for a number of existing economic and resource development programs. The primary purpose of these grants would be to provide tribal governments with funds which they could use at their own discretion to promote development of their reservations.

Indian tribal organizations and Indians seeking to enter business need easier access to loan and credit opportunities; I proposed in 1970 and will again propose legislation to accomplish this objective.

Because Indian rights to natural resources need better protection, I am again urging the Congress to create an Indian Trust Counsel Authority to guarantee that protection.

In the two and one-half years that Indians have been waiting for the Congress to enact the major legislation I have proposed, we have moved ahead administratively whenever possible. We have restored 21,000 acres of wrongfully acquired Government land to the Yakima Tribe. We have filed a precedent-setting suit in the Supreme Court to protect Indian water rights in Pyramid Lake. My fiscal year 1974 budget proposed total Federal outlays of $1.45 billion for Indian affairs, an increase of more than 15 percent over 1973.

To accelerate organizational reform, I have directed the Secretary of the Interior to transfer day to day operational activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs out of Washington to its field offices. And I am again asking the Congress to create a new Assistant Secretary position within the Interior Department to deal with Indian matters.

Veterans

With the coming of peace, the Nation's inestimable debt to our veterans and their dependents will continue to command a high priority among the human resource efforts of this Administration.

During the past four years, I have twice signed legislation increasing the allowances for educational assistance to veterans. Nearly 2 million veterans are now in some form of training under the GI Bill for Vietnam veterans.

Pension payments to veterans or their survivors who need income support have also been raised twice and the test of need has been greatly improved, including a more equitable formula for adjusting the VA pension rate when other sources of income, such as Social Security, are increased. The VA pension program now directly benefits over 2 million individuals.

Compensation payments for service-related disabilities have been raised on two occasions, and more than 2 million veterans of all wars now receive this benefit. The service-disabled veteran deserves special concern. In addition to top-priority consideration in medical care, my budget calls for VA outlays to provide disabled Vietnam-era veterans with vocational rehabilitation, housing grants, and specially equipped automobiles to be nearly doubled in 1974 compared to their 1971 level.

Disability compensation is also being intensively reviewed to ensure that disabled veterans will receive compensation payments which fully recognize their earnings impairment.

VA guaranteed home loans for veterans have risen by almost two-thirds since we took office. And high-priority job programs have decreased the unemployment rate among Vietnam-era veterans by almost one-third during the past year alone.

Dramatic progress has been made in the veterans medical care program. A high level of construction and modernization of VA medical facilities has been carried on. The total number of medical care personnel staffing VA facilities has increased by one-sixth since 1969. The total number of veterans treated both in VA facilities and as outpatients—has risen to new highs. Beneficiaries treated as hospital inpatients will go over the million mark in fiscal 1974 for the first time. Outpatient visits will climb to almost 14,000,000—about twice the level of 1969.

Since 1969, there has also been a steady shortening of the average length of stay in VA hospitals, a highly desirable objective from every viewpoint. This means that VA hospitals have fewer patients in bed on an average day, with shorter waiting lists, even though the total number of patients treated has gone up.

Misunderstanding these statistics, some have sought to establish by law a numerical minimum average daily patient census in VA hospitals. But such a fixed daily census would represent a backward step: it would force a sharply increased length-of-stay—an effect that is medically, economically, and socially undesirable.

It is far better that our veterans be restored to their families and jobs as rapidly as feasible, consistent with good medicare. A fixed patient census would tie the hands of those seeking to serve veterans' health needs; I urge the Congress not to enact such a requirement.

The Congress is now studying several bills involving the VA pension program and cemetery and burial benefits for veterans. I hope that the Congress will work to see that the veterans pension program is realistically structured and compatible with other major income maintenance programs.

On the burial benefits question, I urge that legislative action be deferred until completion of a study currently being conducted by the Administration of Veterans Affairs to determine the most equitable approach to improving burial and cemetery benefits for veterans. The Administrator's recommendations will be made available to the Congress in the near future.

Consumer Affairs

The self-reliance and resourcefulness of our people when they enter the marketplace as consumers, the generally high standard of ethics and social responsibility upheld by business and industry, and the restrained intervention of government at various levels as a vigorous but not heavy-handed referee of commerce—that combination of factors, in that order, has been largely responsible for confounding predictions that American capitalism would breed its own downfall in the 20th century.

We must build on each of these strengths in our efforts to protect the rights of the consumer as well as the vigor of the free enterprise economy in the 1970's.

Early in 1971, after the Congress had failed to act on my “Buyer's Bill of Rights” proposal for a new Office of Consumer Affairs directly under the President, I established such an office by executive order. Under the direction of my Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs, OCA has helped to create a stronger consumer consciousness throughout the executive branch.

This office is now ready to integrate its operations more fully with the line departments of the Government, and has accordingly been transferred into the Department of Health, Education and Welfare—the logical base for an agency concerned with human well-being.

From this new base the Office of Consumer Affairs will continue its policy formation role and educational efforts, and will also take on additional responsibilities, including representing consumer interests in testimony before the Congress and acting as a general ombudsman for the individual consumer.

Voluntary Action

Many thousands of Americans already are volunteering their time to meet human needs in their communities—fighting disease, teaching children to read, working to solve local social problems. But now we must do more to tap the enormous reservoir of energy represented by millions of other potential citizen volunteers.

That is why three years ago I encouraged a number of our leading citizens to create the National Center for Voluntary Action to support private volunteer efforts; that is why two years ago I established the new ACTION agency to strengthen Federal volunteer programs.

We must now continue seeking new avenues of citizen service. As we turn from the concerns of war, may all Americans accept the challenge of peace by volunteering to help meet the needs of their communities—so that we can mobilize a new army of concerned, dedicated, able volunteers across the Nation.

Arts and Humanities

I know that many in the Congress share the concern I have often expressed that some Americans, particularly younger people, lost faith in their country during the 1960's. I believe this faith is now being reborn out of the knowledge that our country is moving toward an era of lasting peace in the world, toward a healthier environment, and toward a new era of progress and equality of opportunity for all our people.

But renewed faith in ourselves also arrives from a deeper understanding of who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going—an understanding to which the arts and the humanities can make a great contribution.

Government has a limited but important function in encouraging the arts and the humanities—that of reinforcing local initiatives and helping key institutions to help themselves. With the approach of our Bicentennial, we have a special opportunity to draw on the enrichment and renewal which cultural activity can provide in our national life. With this in mind, my 1974 budget requests further expansion of the funds for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, to a new high of $168 million. I ask continued full support from the Congress for this funding.

Saying `Yes'

Carl Sandburg spoke volumes about this country's past and future in three simple words that became the title for one of his greatest poems: “The People, Yes.”

America has risen to greatness because again and again when the chips were down, the American people have said yes—yes to the challenge of freedom, yes to the dare of progress, and yes to the hope of peace—even when defending the peace has meant paying the price of war.

America's greatness will endure in the future only if our institutions continually rededicate themselves to saying yes to the people—yes to human needs and aspirations, yes to democracy and the consent of the governed, yes to equal opportunity and unlimited horizons of achievment for every American.

1973 is a year full of opportunity for great advances on this front. After more than a decade of war, we have successfully completed one of the most unselfish missions ever undertaken by one nation in the defense of another. Now the coming of peace permits us to turn our attention more fully to the works of compassion, concern, and social betterment here at home.

The seriousness of my commitment to make the most of this opportunity is evidenced by the record level of funding for human resource programs proposed in our new budget—$125 billion in all—nearly twice the amount that was being spent on such programs when I took office in 1969.

This is both a generous budget and a reform budget. The reforms it proposes will put muscle behind the generosity it intends. The overall effect of these reforms will be the elimination of programs that are wasteful so that we can concentrate on programs that work. They will make possible the continued growth of Federal efforts to meet human needs—while at the same time helping to prevent a runaway deficit that could lead to higher taxes, higher prices, and higher interest rates for all Americans.

The opportunity is ours, executive and legislative branches together, to lead America to a new standard of fairness, of freedom, and of vitality within our federal system. We can forge a new approach to human services in this country—an approach which will treat people as more than mere statistics—an approach which recognizes that problems like poverty and unemployment, health care and the costs of education are more than cold abstractions in a government file drawer.

We know how tough these problems are, because many of us grew up with them ourselves. But we also know that with the right kind of help and the right kind of spirit they can be overcome.

Let us give all our citizens the help they need. But let us remember that each of us also bears a basic obligation to help ourselves and to help our fellowman, and that no one else can assume that obligation for us—least of all the Federal Government.

If we shirk our individual responsibility, the American dream will never be more than a dream.

But if the people say yes to this challenge, if government says yes to the people—and if all of us in Washington say no to petty quarrels and partisanship and yes to our public trust—then we can truly bring that dream to life for all Americans in the new day of peace that is dawning.

RICHARDNIXONThe White House

March 1, 1973

V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Following is the White House text of President Nixon's March 8, 1973 State of the Union message on community development:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Today, in this fifth report to the Congress on the State of the Union, I want to discuss the quality of life in our cities and towns [Page 1139] and set forth new directions for community development in America.

Not long ago we became accustomed to the constant rhetorical drumbeat of the “crisis of our cities.” Problems were multiplying so rapidly for our larger urban areas that some observers said our cities were doomed as centers of culture, of commerce, and of constructive change.

Many of these problems still persist, but I believe we have made sufficient progress in recent years that fears of doom are no longer justified.

What is needed today is calm reflection upon the nature of modern community life in the United States, a reassessment of the manner in which we are trying to solve our remaining problems, and a firm resolve to get on with the task.

Community Diversity

America's communities are as diverse as our people themselves. They vary tremendously in size—from massive cities to medium-sized urban and suburban areas, to small towns and rural communities.

Just as importantly, each of our communities has built up strong individual characteristics over the years, shaped by region, climate, economic influences, ethnic origins and local culture.

Of course, communities do share common needs and concerns. People in every community want adequate housing, transportation, and jobs, a clean environment, good health, education, recreation facilities, security from crime and fear, and other essential services. But local priorities differ; the intensity and order of local needs vary.

Clearly, no single, rigid scheme, imposed by the Federal Government from Washington, is capable of meeting the changing and varied needs of this diverse and dynamic Nation.

There is no “best” way, no magic, universal cure-all, that can be dispensed from hundreds or thousands of miles away. What is good for New York City is not necessarily good for Chicago, or San Francisco, much less for smaller communities with entirely different economies, traditions and populations.

Too often in the past we have fallen into the trap of letting Washington make the final decisions for St. Louis, Detroit, Miami and our other cities. Sometimes the decisions were right, and programs have succeeded. Too often they were wrong, and we are still paying the price.

The time has come to recognize the errors of past Federal efforts to support community development and to move swiftly to correct them.

Errors of the Past

The results of past errors from a disturbing catalogue:

• They have distorted local priorities.

• They have spawned a massive glut of red tape.

• They have created an adversary climate between local communities and Washington which has often led to waste, delay and mutual frustration.

• They have contributed to a lack of confidence among our people in the ability of both local and national governments to solve problems and get results.

• They have led to the creation of too many complex and often competing Federal programs.

• Perhaps worst of all, they have undercut the will and the ability of local and State governments to take the initiative to mobilize their own energies and those of their citizens.

The Federal policy that will work best in the last third of this century is not one that tries to force all of our communities into a single restrictive mold. The Federal policy that will work best is one that helps people and their leaders in each community meet their own needs in the way they think best.

It is this policy which binds together the many aspects of our community development programs.

The Better Communities Act

In the near future, I will submit to the Congress the Better Communities Act to provide revenue sharing for community development. Beginning July 1, 1974, this act would provide $2.3 billion a year to communities to be spent as they desire to meet their community development needs. In the interim period before the legislation becomes effective, funds already available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be used to maintain and support community development.

The Better Communities Act is intended to replace inflexible and fragmented categorical grant-in-aid programs, and to reduce the excessive Federal control that has been so frustrating to local governments.

Rather than focusing and concentrating resources in a coordinated assault on a set of problems, the categorical system scatters these resources, and diminishes their impact upon the most needy. Excessive Federal influence also limits the variety and diversity of development programs. Local officials should be able to focus their time, their resources and their talents on meeting local needs and producing results, instead of trying to please Washington with an endless torrent of paperwork.

I first proposed such legislation in 1971, and although the Congress failed to enact it, significant support was expressed in both the Senate and the House. Since that time, members of my Administration have been consulting with Congressional leaders, mayors, Governors, other local officials and their representatives. Many constructive suggestions have been received and will be incorporated in my new legislative proposal. As a result, I believe the Better Communities Act will represent our best hope for the future of community development and will deserve rapid approval by the Congress.

Among the most significant features of the Better Communities Act are these:

Hold-Harmless ProvisionThe flow of money to cities and urban counties is to be based on a formula reflecting community needs, as determined by objective standards. In the years immediately following enactment, funds would be used to assure that no city receives less money for community development than it has received under the categorical grant programs.

Assistance for Smaller CommunitiesFunding is also to be provided for our smaller communities, recognizing the vital importance of small towns and rural communities to the future of the Nation.

The Role of State GovernmentState governments have always played an important part in meeting the community development needs of their communities. The Act will recognize this role.

Local Decision MakingWhile each of the activities now supported by categorical grants may be continued it would be up to local leaders to determine how that money will be spent.

Minimizing Red TapeRecipients would be required to show the Federal Government only that they are complying with Federal statutes in the way they are spending their revenue sharing money.

Elimination of MatchingShared revenues would not have to be matched by local funds.

Protection for MinoritiesUnder no circumstances could funds provided under the Better Communities Act be used for purposes that would violate the civil rights of any person.

A Department of Community Development

One of the most serious deficiencies in the effort of the Federal Government to assist in community development has been the fragmentation and scattering of Federal programs among a variety of departments and agencies. All too often State or local officials seeking help for a particular project must shuttle back and forth from one Federal office to another, wasting precious time and resources in a bureaucratic wild goose chase.

In order to coordinate our community development activities more effectively, I proposed nearly two years ago that we create a Department of Community Development which would pull under [Page 1140] one roof various programs now in the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Agriculture, and other agencies.

After extensive hearings on this proposal, the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives reached this conclusion:

The Department of Community Development will be a constructive center in the Federal Government for assistance to communities, large and small. It will facilitate rational planning, orderly growth, and the effective employment of resources to build viable communities throughout the United States. It will help to strengthen the physical and institutional bases for cooperative action by Federal, State and local governments.

This Administration fully agrees, of course, and will continue to work with the Congress for the prompt creation of a Department of Community Development.

In the interim, I recently appointed a Presidential Counsellor on Community Development who will coordinate community development programs and policies in the executive branch. But only when the Congress approves the basic departmental reorganization proposed by the Administration can our efforts to eliminate waste, confusion and duplication, and to promote community betterment more efficiently, be fully effective.

The Responsive Governments Act

For nearly 20 years, the Federal Government has provided assistance to State and local governments in order to strengthen their planning and management capabilities.

This aid, provided under the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program, has always been helpful, but the program itself has several major flaws. It has tended, for instance, to stress one aspect of public administration—planning—without adequately recognizing other essential features such as budgeting, management, personnel administration, and information-gathering. Planning has often been irrelevant to the problems and the actual decisions. State and local governments have also found it difficult to coordinate their planning because of the fragmented way in which funds have been sent from Washington.

This Administration proposed new planning and management legislation to the 92nd Congress, but it was not approved. In the meantime, we took what steps we could to improve the existing program. Some progress has been made, but corrective legislation is still needed.

I shall therefore propose that the 93rd Congress enact a new Responsive Governments Act. I shall also propose that we provide $110 million for this act in fiscal year 1974—almost one-fifth of the entire amount that has been spent under the present law in the last two decades.

This Responsive Governments Act would assist State and local governments in meeting several important goals:

• Developing reliable information on their problems and opportunities;

• Developing and analyzing alternative policies and programs;

• Managing the programs;

• And evaluating the results, so that appropriate adjustments can be made.

The ability to plan and manage is vital to effective government. It will be even more important to State and local governments as they are freed from the restraints of narrow categorical Federal programs and must decide how to spend revenue sharing funds. Thus the Responsive Governments Act is a vitally necessary companion piece to the Better Communities Act.

Housing

This Administration is firmly committed to the goal first set forth for America in the 1949 Housing Act: “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.” While we believe that some of our housing programs have failed and should be replaced, we should never waiver in our commitment.

During the past four years, the Federal government has provided housing assistance to an additional 1.5 million American families of low and moderate income. This represents more housing assistance than the total provided by the Federal Government during the entire 34-year history of our national housing program preceding this Administration.

In addition, a healthy, vigorous, private housing industry has provided 6 million new unsubsidized units of housing for Americans in the last four years. Housing starts for each of the last three years have reached record high levels,—levels, in fact, that are more than double the average for the preceding 21 years.

Most importantly, the percentage of Americans living in substandard housing has dropped dramatically from 46 percent in 1940 to 37 percent in 1950 to 18 percent in 1960 to 8 percent in 1970. Americans today are better housed than ever before in our history.

At the same time, however, there has been mounting evidence of basic defects in some of our housing programs. It is now clear that all too frequently the needy have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programs; that the programs have been riddled with inequities; and that the cost for each unit of subsidized housing produced under these programs has been too high. In short, we shall be making far more progress than we have been and we should now move to place our housing policies on a much firmer foundation.

That is why we suspended new activity under Federal subsidized housing programs effective January 5th of this year. I would emphasize, however, that commitments that were made under these programs prior to their suspension will be honored. This will mean that approximately 300,000 units of new subsidized housing will be started in 1973.

In pursuing our goal of decent homes for all Americans, we know that better means are needed that the old and wasteful programs, programs which have already obligated the taxpayer to payments of between $63 billion and $95 billion during the next 40 years, are not the answer.

One of my highest domestic priorities this year will be the development of new policies that will provide aid to genuinely needy families and eliminate waste.

A major housing study is now underway within the Government, under the direction of my Counsellor for Community Development. Within the next six months, I intend to submit to the Congress my policy recommendations in this field, based upon the results of that study.

Transportation

To thrive, a community must provide for the efficient movement of its people and its products. Yet in recent years, the growing separation of the city from its suburbs and changing employment patterns have made transportation more of a community problem than a community asset. To improve community development we must meet the challenge of transportation planning and provide more flexible means for communities to meet their transportation needs.

Without better transportation, our communities will either stagnate or choke.

Four years ago we initiated programs to renew and redirect our transportation systems. We took action to expand the capacity of our airways, to preserve and improve intercity rail passenger service, to continue the Nation's highway program with greater emphasis on safety, and to bring needed progress to our surface public transportation. The Federal committee has been substantial:

• The enlarged Airport Development Aid Program established under the Airport-Airways Development Act of 1970 has quadrupled Federal assistance to airports to $295 million per year.

• Under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 we have begun to rejuvenate rail service as part of a balanced transportation system.

• From 1970 through 1974 we will have invested some $23 billion in highways. In 1972 alone we committed $3.3 billion to the Interstate system, which is now 80 percent complete. In that same year, $870 million was designated for primary and secondary roads. Equally important, we have emphasized safety on our highways, both in their design and use.

• We have progressively increased the levels of federal funding for transportation research, development, and demonstration projects. This support focuses on new transportation technology. It is designed to encourage private industry to join aggressively in the search for better transportation.

Concurrent with our programs to improve transportation between our cities, we have undertaken programs to develop free-flowing corridors for people and commerce within our cities.

• Since 1970, when I proposed and the Congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act, we have committed more than 2 billion Federal dollars to preserve and upgrade public transportation. Nationally, urban public transportation has become a billion-dollar-a-year Federal program.

• Over the past four years, Federal dollars have helped 60 American cities to help those who depend on public systems for transportation to jobs, hospitals, shops and recreational centers. Now we must deal even more aggressively with community development challenges in transportation by building on the strong foundations we have laid.

Nothing can do more to lift the face of our cities, and the spirit of our city dwellers, than truly adequate systems of modern transportation. With the best highway system in the world, and with 75 percent of our people owning and operating automobiles, we have more transportation assets per capita than any other people on earth. Yet the commuter who uses a two-ton vehicle to transport only himself to and from work each day is not making the most efficient use of our transportation system and is himself contributing to our transportation and environmental problems.

Good public transportation is essential not only to assure adequate transportation for all citizens, but to forward the common goal of less congested, cleaner and safer communities. As I pointed out a few weeks ago in my message on the environment and natural resources, effective mass transit systems that relieve urban congestion will also reduce pollution and the waste of our limited energy resources.

As we build such systems, we must be aware of the two special challenges in coordinating the needs of the inner city and the suburb and in alleviating potential disruptions which new transportation systems can bring to neighborhood life.

Highway Trust Fund

To further these efforts I again continue to urge Congress to permit a portion of the Highway Trust Fund to be used in a more flexible fashion, thus allowing mass transit capital investments where communities so desire.

I recommend that the Congress authorize the expenditure by State and local governments of $3.65 billion over the next three years from the Highway Trust Fund for urban transportation needs, including capital improvements for bus and rapid rail systems. I also recommend continuing the rural high program at the $1 billion a year level, and providing ample resources to advance the Interstate system as it approaches its 1980 funding completion date. This legislation can meet old needs while at the same time addressing new ones.

Some communities now feel unduly obligated to spend Federal monies on controversial Interstate highway segments in urban areas. I urge the Congress to allow States and localities to transfer such funds to the construction of other Federal aid highways and mass transit capital improvements. In this way, we can help resolve controversies which have slowed work on a number of Interstate links in urban areas.

It is very important to recognize that this proposal does not represent an arbitrary Federal shift of funds from highways to transit. What it does stress is the right of local governments to choose the best solutions for their urban transportation problems.

This year, in a companion measure to our Federal Highway Bill, I am also proposing that funding for mass transit capital grants be increased by $3 billion, bringing the obligational authority for the mass transit program to $6.1 billion. This provision would maintain a forward looking mass transit program through at least 1977. I am also asking the Congress to amend the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act, increasing the Federal share for urban mass transit capital grant assistance programs to 70 percent and thereby achieving parity with Federal aid for urban and rural road building projects.

Rural Development

Community Development is sometimes thought of primarily in terms of urban areas. However, as this Administration has often pointed out—and will continue to emphasize—no element of our national well-being is more important than the health and vitality of our rural communities. Thus, in pursuing a policy of balanced development for our community life, we must always keep the needs of rural America clearly in sight.

Twice in the last two years, I have recommended legislation which would provide new revenues for rural development. Under my latest proposal, loans and guarantees would have been made for projects selected and prepared by the States.

While the 92nd Congress did not enact either of these proposals, it did enact the Rural Development Act of 1972 establishing additional lending authority for rural needs. Like the Administration's proposals, this lending authority provides for insured loans and guaranteed loans which allow maximum participation of the private sector.

Several new programs are proposed to be funded under the Rural Development Act. One is a $200 million loan program to assist communities with a population of less than 50,000 in developing commercial and industrial facilities. A previously existing loan program has been increased by $100 million—to a total of $445 million—and, under the new law, can now be used to construct a wide variety of essential community facilities. In addition, grants and other programs under the act will be funded at a level of $33 million.

This Administration will implement the Rural Development Act in a manner consistent with the revenue sharing concept, allowing major project selections and priority decisions to be made by the State and local governments whenever possible. It is our intent, after fully evaluating the effectiveness of this approach, to seek whatever additional legislation may be needed.

Disaster Assistance

To a community suffering the ravages of a natural disaster, nothing is more important than prompt and effective relief assistance. As our population grows and spreads, each storm, earthquake, drought or freeze affects larger numbers of people.

During the past four years, we have tried to reduce personal injury, deaths, and property damage by emphasizing adequate preventive measures. During the same period, however, I have had to declare 111 major disasters in 39 States and three Territories. This past year alone set a tragic record for major disaster activity, as I had to declare 48 major disasters—43 caused by storms and floodings. There were a number of especially devastating disaster emergencies in this period: the flooding in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia; flash flood in Rapid City, South Dakota; and, of course, Tropical Storm Agnes which rampaged through the eastern United States. Agnes alone caused 118 deaths and some $3 billion in property damage.

Until now, disaster relief efforts have involved a number of different agencies and have been coordinated by the Executive Office of the President. The experience of the past few years has demonstrated that:

• We are not doing nearly enough to prepare in advance for disasters.

• States, local governments and private individuals should assume a larger role in preparing for disasters, and in relieving the damage after they have occurred.

• Responsibility for relief is presently too fragmented among too many authorities.

• At the Federal level, disaster relief should be managed by a single agency.

I intend to make 1973 a turning point in the quality of governmental response to natural disasters.

To achieve this goal, I have already proposed Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1973, which is now before the Congress. It calls for the delegation of all responsibility for coordinating disaster relief to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who is also my Counsellor for Community Development. This transfer of operations would take place at the beginning of the new fiscal year and would be carried out in such a way that the effective relations which now exist with State disaster officials would in no way be harmed, while a new sense of unity and mobility at the Federal level would be fostered.

If the Congress enacts my proposal for a new Department of Community Development, that new department would be responsible for directing all Federal disaster activities, including those of several other agencies which perform disaster roles.

In addition to the improvement I have proposed in Reorganization Plan Number 1, I will shortly submit a new Disaster Assistance Act to the Congress. This new act is designed to improve the delivery of Federal assistance, to provide a more equitable basis for financing individual property losses, and to forge a more balanced partnership for meeting disasters head-on—a partnership not only among governments at all levels but also between governments and private citizens.

Under these proposals, each level of government would accept responsibility for those things it can do best. While the Federal Government would continue to assist with financing, State and local governments would have far more latitude and responsibility in the use of those funds. They would also be encouraged to assert stronger leadership in efforts to minimize the damage of future disasters.

For homeowners, farmers and businessmen who have suffered disaster losses, the Federal Government would continue to provide direct assistance.

I will also recommend to the Congress an expansion of the national flood insurance program to allow participation by more communities in flood-prone areas and to increase the limits of coverage.

Conclusion

As reflected by the proposals set forth here, I believe that we must strike out on broad, new paths of community development in America.

During the last few years, we have taken genuine, measurable strides toward better communities. All of this is good; it is not good enough.

It is clear that we can and should be accomplishing more in the field of community development. There are too many programs that have been tried and found wanting. There are too many programs that strengthen the bureaucracy in Washington but sap the strength of our State and local governments.

People today want to have a real say in the way their communities are run. They want to feel that, once again, they can play a significant role in shaping the kind of world their children will inherit. And they expect their institutions to respond to their needs and aspirations.

That feeling will never flourish if the Federal Government, however vast its financial resources and however good its intentions, tries to direct the pattern of our lives. That feeling cannot be manufactured in Washington, it must come from within.

But the Federal Government can and should eliminate some of the barriers that have impeded the development of that feeling by returning resources and initiatives to the people and their locally elected leaders. It is in that spirit that I urge the 93rd Congress to give favorable consideration to my proposals for community development.

RICHARDNIXONThe White House

March 8, 1973.

VI. CRIME & LAW ENFORCEMENT

Following is the White House text of President Nixon's March 14, 1973, State of the Union message on crime and law enforcement:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

This sixth message to the Congress on the State of the Union, concerns our Federal system of criminal justice. It discusses both the progress we have made in improving that system and the additional steps we must take to consolidate our accomplishments and to further our efforts to achieve a safe, just, and law-abiding society.

In the period from 1960 to 1968 serious crime in the United States increased by 122 percent according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Index. The rate of increase accelerated each year until it reached a peak of 17 percent in 1968.

In 1968 one major public opinion poll showed that Americans considered lawlessness to be the top domestic problem facing the Nation. Another poll showed that four out of five Americans believed that “Law and order has broken down in this country.” There was a very real fear that crime and violence were becoming a threat to the stability of our society.

The decade of the 1960s was characterized in many quarters by a growing sense of permissiveness in America—as well intentioned as it was poorly reasoned—in which many people were reluctant to take the steps necessary to control crime. It is no coincidence that within a few years time, America experienced a crime wave that threatened to become uncontrollable.

`All Out Attack'

This Administration came to office in 1969 with the conviction that the integrity of our free institutions demanded stronger and firmer crime control. I promised that the wave of crime would not be the wave of the future. An all-out attack was mounted against crime in the United States.

• The manpower of Federal enforcement and prosecution agencies was increased.

• New legislation was proposed and passed by the Congress to put teeth into Federal enforcement efforts against organized crime, drug trafficking, and crime in the District of Columbia.

• Federal financial aid to State and local criminal justice systems—a forerunner of revenue sharing—was greatly expanded through Administration budgeting and Congressional appropriations, reaching a total of $1.5 billion in the three fiscal years from 1970 through 1972.

These steps marked a clear departure from the philosophy which had come to dominate Federal crime fighting efforts, and which had brought America to record-breaking levels of lawlessness. Slowly, we began to bring America back. The effort has been long, slow, and difficult. In spite of the difficulties, we have made dramatic progress.

In the last four years the Department of Justice has obtained convictions against more than 2500 organized crime figures, including a number of bosses and under-bosses in major cities across the country. The pressure on the underworld is building constantly.

Today, the capital of the United States no longer bears the stigma of also being the Nation's crime capital. As a result of decisive reforms in the criminal justice system the serious crime rate has been cut in half in Washington, D.C. From a peak rate of more than 200 serious crimes per day reached during one month in 1969, the figure has been cut by more than half to 93 per day for the latest month of record in 1973. Felony prosecutions have increased from 2100 to 3800, and the time between arrest and trial for felonies has fallen from ten months to less than two.

Because of the combined efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, the wave of serious crime in the United States is being brought under control. Latest figures from the FBI's Uniform Crime [Page 1143] Index show that serious crime is increasing at the rate of only one percent a year—the lowest recorded rate since 1960. A majority of cities with over 100,000 population shows an actual reduction in crime.

These statistics and these indices suggest that our anti-crime program is on the right track. They suggest that we are taking the right measures. They prove that the only way to attack crime in America is the way crime attacks our people—without pity. Our program is based on this philosophy, and it is working.

Now we intend to maintain the momentum we have developed by taking additional steps to further improve law enforcement and to further protect the people of the United States.

Law Enforcement Special Revenue Sharing

Most crime in America does not fall under Federal jurisdiction. Those who serve in the front lines of the battle against crime are the State and local law enforcement authorities. State and local police are supported in turn by many other elements of the criminal justice system, including prosecuting and defending attorneys, judges, and probation and corrections officers. All these elements need assistance and some need dramatic reform, especially the prison systems.

While the Federal Government does not have full jurisdiction in the field of criminal law enforcement, it does have a broad, constitutional responsibility to insure domestic tranquility. I intend to meet that responsibility.

At my direction, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) has greatly expanded its efforts to aid in the improvement of State and local criminal justice systems. In the last three years of the previous Administration, Federal grants to State and local law enforcement authorities amounted to only $22 million. In the first three years of my Administration, this same assistance totaled more than $1.5 billion—more than 67 times as much. I consider this money to be an investment in justice and safety on our streets, an investment which has been yielding encouraging dividends.

But the job has not been completed. We must now act further to improve the Federal role in the granting of aid for criminal justice. Such improvement can come with the adoption of Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement.

I believe the transition to Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement will be a relatively easy one. Since its inception, the LEAA has given block grants which allow State and local authorities somewhat greater discretion than does the old-fashioned categorical grant system. But States and localities still lack both the flexibility and the clear authority they need in spending Federal monies to meet their law enforcement challenges.

Under my proposed legislation, block grants, technical assistance grants, manpower development grants, and aid for correctional institutions would be combined into one $680 million Special Revenue Sharing fund which would be distributed to States and local governments on a formula basis. This money could be used for improving any area of State and local criminal justice systems.

I have repeatedly expressed my conviction that decisions affecting those at State and local levels should be made to the fullest possible extent at State and local levels. This is the guiding principle behind revenue sharing. Experience has demonstrated the validity of this approach and I urge that it now be fully applied to the field of law enforcement and criminal justice.

Criminal Code Reform Act

The Federal criminal laws of the United States date back to 1790 and are based on statutes then pertinent to effective law enforcement. With the passage of new criminal laws, with the unfolding of new court decisions interpreting those laws, and with the development and growth of our Nation, many of the concepts still reflected in our criminal laws have become inadequate, clumsy, or outmoded.

In 1966, the Congress established the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws to analyze and evaluate the criminal code. The Commission's final report of January 7, 1971, has been studied and further refined by the Department of Justice, working with the Congress. In some areas this Administration has substantial disagreements with the Commission's recommendations. But we agree fully with the almost universal recognition that modification of the Code is not merely desirable but absolutely imperative.

Accordingly, I will soon submit to the Congress the Criminal Code Reform Act aimed at a comprehensive revision of existing Federal criminal laws. This act will provide a rational, integrated code of Federal criminal law that is workable and responsive to the demands of a modern Nation.

The act is divided into three parts: (1) general provisions and principles, (2) definitions of Federal offenses, and (3) provisions for sentencing.

Part 1 of the Code establishes general provisions and principles regarding such matters as Federal criminal jurisdiction, culpability, complicity, and legal defenses, and contains a number of significant innovations. Foremost among these is a more effective test for establishing Federal criminal jurisdiction. Those circumstances giving rise to Federal jurisdiction are clearly delineated in the proposed new Code and the extent of jurisdiction is clearly defined.

I am emphatically opposed to encroachment by Federal authorities on State sovereignty, by unnecessarily increasing the areas over which the Federal Government asserts jurisdiction. To the contrary, jurisdiction has been relinquished in those areas where the States have demonstrated no genuine need for assistance in protecting their citizens.

In those instances where jurisdiction is expanded, care has been taken to limit that expansion to areas of compelling Federal interest which are not adequately dealt with under present law. An example of such an instance would be the present law which states that it is a Federal crime to travel in interstate commerce to bribe a witness in a State court proceeding, but it is not a crime to travel in interstate commerce to threaten or intimidate the same witness, though intimidation might even take the from of murdering the witness.

The Federal interest is the same in each case—to assist the State in safeguarding the integrity of its judicial processes. In such a case, an extension of Federal jursidiction is clearly warranted and is provided for under my proposal.

The rationalization of jurisdictional bases permits greater clarity of drafting, uniformity of interpretation, and the consolidation of numerous statutes presently applying to basically the same conduct.

For example, title 18 of the criminal Code as presently drawn, lists some 70 theft offenses—each written in a different fashion to cover the taking of various kinds of property in different jurisdictional situations. In the proposed new Code, these have been reduced to 5 general sections. Almost 80 forgery, counterfeiting, and related offenses have been replaced by only 3 sections. Over 50 statutes involving perjury and false statements have been reduced to 7 sections. Approximately 70 arson and property destruction offenses have been consolidated into 4 offenses.

Similar changes have been made in the Code's treatment of culpability. Instead of 79 undefined terms or combinations of terms presently found in title 18, the Code uses four clearly defined terms.

Another major innovation reflected in Part One is a codification of general defenses available to a defendant. This change permits clarification of areas in which the law is presently confused and, for the first time, provides uniform Federal standards for defense.

Insanity Defense

The most significant feature of this chapter is a codification of the “insanity” defense. At present the test is determined by the courts and varies across the country. The standard has become so vague in some instances that it has led to unconscionable abuse by defendants.